June 19th, 2014

Texas defends itself against the tide of illegal immigrants—and against Obama

The United States has jurisdiction over the border problem but is doing nothing to stop it and might in fact be encouraging it. So the state of Texas announces that it will take action:

Texas’ top three leaders, Governor Rick Perry, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Joe Straus directed the Department of Public Safety to immediately begin law enforcement surge operations along the Texas-Mexico border…

The surge operations will cost $1.3 million each week, and DPS is authorized to continue the operations for the rest of the year…

In a statement, Governor Perry said, “Texas can’t afford to wait for Washington to act on this crisis and we will not sit idly by while the safety and security of our citizens are threatened.”

State officials worry that while the federal government scrambles to house thousands of unaccompanied children crossing the border, there are fewer federal agents to keep up with criminals and gangs trying to get into the U.S.

The state says last year, when DPS conducted Operation Strong Safety, crime rates related to drug cartels, gangs, and other illegal border activity dropped sharply.

Note what’s being said here. My understanding is that the state can only help prevent entry by increasing patrols; they can’t deport people if Obama won’t do so.

So the huge number of families and kids illegally coming to this country is not even the issue on which Texas is focusing here. Rather, it’s that their entry is flooding the border and distracting the guards’ time and energy while the drug cartels climb aboard.

Now, we don’t know how families are getting the money to come here, and your conspiracy theory is probably as good as mine—and I do have some. But even if the majority of families/kids are coming for their own reasons (because they think they will be allowed to stay and get services, and/or to flee the violence in their home countries) rather than purposely as decoys for the cartels, they are serving as de facto decoys for them nonetheless. So if fleeing the danger posed by murderous drug cartels in their countries of origin is one of their motivations, then it’s highly ironic that escaping in this manner will serve to facilitate the entry of those very same dangerous people into the US, while the border guards are busy being babysitters.

And our president, whose duty it is to protect the US as a sovereign country, defend its borders, and follow the rule of law—including its immigration laws—encourages the first (the illegal entry of kids and families) and winks at the second (the illegal entry of criminals). Incidentally (or not so incidentally), both will help turn Texas blue and at the same time harm it financially. This DPS money doesn’t come from nowhere; it comes from Texans.

27 Responses to “Texas defends itself against the tide of illegal immigrants—and against Obama”

  1. Ymarsakar Says:

    The more rapists the Left can create, the more traumatized young single vulnerable women are, and the more Democrat voters there become. The strategy is multi faceted in its benefits, but what powers the engine is one of many gears. Difficult to surmise, at this point, what the Prime Lever is.

  2. Matt_SE Says:

    I wonder if the illegals won’t “self-deport” anyway.
    Imagine that Texas gives the illegals a choice: indefinite detention (essentially, life in prison), or leave the U.S.
    Not much of a choice.

    DoJ lawyers would no doubt press for some time limit, but I wonder how long Perry could string this out.

    Really, he only has to keep this game going for 2.5 years.

  3. Michael Adams Says:

    “Texans …pay.” This Texan is glad to pony up, and I know none who are not. You’re welcome.

  4. blert Says:

    The gangs have ALWAYS been involved in people smuggling.

    So the up front monies are almost certainly available from that source.

    Any (modest) outlays are fulsomely recouped by various shakedown/ protection rackets.

    I’ve been told by illegal immigrant workers (day labor) that it’s common as dust for the gangs to demand additional funding — say $2,000 — on short notice lest something regrettable might happen to their stay-behind sister/mother/kid brother, et. al.

    No small amount of Latino crime is driven by such threats. Fellows that would never steal do become thieves as this is their only (obvious) recourse.

    They are not in a position to notify the police — and the Mexican police are part of the gang themselves.


    Thirty-years ago the WSJ sent a New York reporter down to Mexico City to draft a story about the wave of kidnappings sweeping that city.

    He and his aide were promptly kidnapped right from hotel steps!

    It eventuated that the leader of the ring was the Mexican police lieutenant in charge of anti-kidnapping operations. (!)

    (His aide never let on that she knew Mexican Spanish perfectly. So the criminals just figured that they could speak freely.)

    They were truly ticked that the WSJ reporter could only draw $200 per day at the ATM. They’d assumed that he was a loaded NYC banker — good for $10,000 quick cash, easy.

    The reporter had his story and fled town the next day.

    His report ran on page 1, left column.

  5. parker Says:

    You can find quoted figures of $500-5,000 in order to be smuggled across the southern border, but I have no idea what the actual costs are for this current crop of young illegals. I suspect its fund by the messiah’s Organizing for Action.

  6. kit Says:

    We are benig invaded by a foreign army working in concert with Obama. This is a war.

    Thank you, Texas!!!!!

  7. J.J. Says:

    Write your Congress Critters. Demand action. We need the National Guard down there post haste. Louie Gohmert, (R-Texas) is pushing a bill through the House to send the Guard. Demand that your Representative support it. Just do it!

  8. Snackeater Says:

    Texas needs to round up all the illegals they can get their hands on, especially the children, and put them on a plane to San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, and any other “sanctuary city” they can think of. Let them deal with the problem.

  9. parker Says:

    Protect borders? Carry out laws that offend me and obstruct my agenda? Defend this oppressive, racist nation of negative rights? Ha ha ha! I rule and all submit to my whim. I am the best speech writer, policy wonk, and most intelligent human in all of history to breathe the carbon polluted atmosphere and piss the polluted water of this planet that is too small to contain my magnificent ego.


  10. jms Says:

    Texas does have options under the Constitution.

    “Article I Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    Article I Section 10: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    If the Texas legislature were to declare that the State of Texas is being “actually invaded”, it could then assume the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus and hold the invaders indefinitely without recourse to Federal courts, and could enter into direct negotiations with the Mexican Government, bypassing the Federal Government, to stop the invasion.

  11. Promethea Says:

    All you Texans are very lucky. Count your blessings.

    In Chicago, land of the Machine, all my taxes go to pay the pensions of double dippers and overpaid teachers.

    In Texas, your taxes go to paying the salaries of people who will defend the border of our beloved United States of America.

    I’ve considered moving to Texas but I don’t like hot weather. I guess I have to continue to pay racketeers and black power communists in order to enjoy the ever-interesting weather in Chicago.

  12. Promethea Says:

    BTW, I know I’m not the only American who is trying to come up with a plan to save the USA that we know and love. The USA with constitutional government and the rule of law. (And reasonable spending.)

    Right now we all need to think about who our hidden enemies are.

    I vote for (1) the Russians who want to end our petroleum and natural gas potential; (2) the Saudis, ditto; (3) George Soros and his ilk, the transnational progressives, who want to rule the world; and (4) the traitors in Congress who refuse to do their jobs because “money.”

    Let’s all think about various strategies. They can’t destroy all of us who have a strategy.

  13. parker Says:


    Just cross the Mississippi and come join the vibrant economy of Iowa. The topography is easy on the eye compared to most of Illinois, the level of corruption is low, police for the most part recognize we citizens are the employers and they are the employees, and the prevailing winds keep the stench of Chicago from crossing the Big Muddy. And as an added bonus 99% of the elite just flyover unless its caucus time.

    Plus, you have to admire conservative Iowan gals who can shoot straight: http://tinyurl.com/lphbwdr

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    Marin California gets 60 F even in the summer. Georgia gets 70 before May but 85-95 in June/July.

  15. J.J. Says:

    Rick Perry was on O’Reilly tonight. He’s declaring a humanitarian emergency because the illegal children are filling places where people need to take refuge in case of property destroying twisters. Those spaces are part of their emergency plans to save lives during the destructive weather season. He’s going to spend $1.4 million a week to send both the Guard and Texas Rangers to help secure the border. He was very serious. Never cracked a smile. Good! It’s about time someone stood up to the Feds.

  16. parker Says:

    Article 5. That is the way to go. The states need to reassert their authority under the 9th & 10th. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and all who followed tried their best to beat down the sovereignty of the states as made clear in the 9th & 10th. SCOTUS has almost been a major player in the war on the Constitution.

    A majority of states needs to take back their sovereignty. That is the only way we avoid a bloodbath. The first civil war resulted in 600k dead and 3x wounded. The next one, if not avoided by accommodation to allow those who wish to leave to leave, will result in 60M dead and 3x wounded. Evolution in action.

  17. blert Says:


    Civil War II would entail freeing the tax slaves.

    The gibsmedats own the cities, the media, and Hollywood.

    The tax slaves control the food, the oil, the transport grid, the power system, and most of the rural hustings.

    It could get very ugly.

  18. Lurker Says:

    I just don’t understand this obsession with Lincoln as tyrant. What would you have done when faced with the War of Southern Aggression? The South after all picked a war monger as president specifically because he would start a war and the South’s war objectives included capture of the Colorado gold fields and the southwest all the way to the Pacific.

  19. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Democrats of the South and North painted Lincoln as a tyrant because they had to have someone to blame, and it wasn’t going to be the Democrat aristocracy, the slave owners, or the land owners.

  20. Ymarsakar Says:

    200 years from now, they’ll probably be talking about the Tyrant Bush that caused Civil War II, as well, due to Iraq intervention. Even if they lost.

  21. Artfldgr Says:

    if you can’t get the people to change the government, change the people

  22. Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » The new twist in illegal immigration: Children as human shields for the cartels Says:

    […] Neo-​neocon explains Now, we don’t know how fam­i­lies are get­ting the money to come here, and your con­spir­acy the­ory is prob­a­bly as good as mine — and I do have some. But even if the major­ity of families/​kids are com­ing for their own rea­sons (because they think they will be allowed to stay and get ser­vices, and/​or to flee the vio­lence in their home coun­tries) rather than pur­posely as decoys for the car­tels, they are serv­ing as de facto decoys for them nonethe­less. So if flee­ing the dan­ger posed by mur­der­ous drug car­tels in their coun­tries of ori­gin is one of their moti­va­tions, then it’s highly ironic that escap­ing in this man­ner will serve to facil­i­tate the entry of those very same dan­ger­ous peo­ple into the US, while the bor­der guards are busy being babysitters. […]

  23. parker Says:

    Lincoln rode roughshod over the Constitution in many different ways. I am not defending slavery, it is abhorrent and can never be justified under any circumstances. However, it was legal at the time Lincoln fired upon Fort Sumter. The way to end slavery was to buy the slaves at market value (slavery was going to become economically infeasible as ag tech was increasing at that time) and return them to Africa, and amend the Constitution to forbid slavery. That would have been far cheaper and cost no blood or enduring animus.

    If today Texas decided to cut its ties to the union and go its own way as an independent nation would you favor DC attacking Texas, defeating the lone stars, and forcing the defeated to vote blue forever more??? The states, under the Constitution, are sovereign. IMO, every state has the sovereign right to leave the union without fear of blood, tears, and subjugation under the boot of the DC tyrants. If you do not agree DC has become a tyrant far more repressive than King George you might feel more comfortable in moving to the UK.

  24. blert Says:

    “the time Lincoln fired upon Fort Sumter.”

    You jest.

    1) Fort Sumter was the Federal military facility in the center of the harbor built with guns that would hazard any alien navy’s bombardment of the docks.

    2) The ENTIRE Fort Sumter ‘attack’ was agitprop. It never really quite occurred. (!)

    3) The FEDERAL troops on the island/ fort were South Carolinians, too. (where it counted)

    4) The two ‘factions’ PRE-ARRANGED the ‘battle.’ They’d been having catered meals at the dockside — together — as recently as the two days prior.

    5) All of these interesting details have come forth from the Southern belles who catered the confabs — in fine Southern style — day after day — as the boys argued about how to deal with Lincoln’s election.

    6) The original pre-arranged ‘battle’ was to feature exactly 100 cannon shots from the fort back at the militia. However, after firing 48 totally harmless rounds (killing the fish — see Catch 22) the 49th salute seriously misfired — causing the only Federal casualty of the day.

    7) So the Federals promptly agreed to reduce their cannonade down to 50 shots. (Guns getting too hot)

    8) Naturally the ‘South’ suffered zero casualties due to Federal fire. The ‘Federals’ suffered zero casualties due to militia cannons.

    9) The fort’s commander threw away the longer range shot with exploding shells rather than fire for effect. He then lied in his report to the President that he had no exploding ordnance!

    (It ended up in the bay/ or with the militia.)

    So the ‘battle’ was a total fake — a fire works exercise worthy of Hogan’s Heroes.

    South Carolina presented Lincoln with a fait accompli — providing both sides of the battle — and all of the agitprop to suit.

    The massive collusion between the two parties was not known during the Civil War. They truly pulled it off.

    Most popular histories have yet to figure out that the entire affair was a sham.

    While I mentioned that Federal cannon never hit the shore, I need also point out that no militia cannon ever was aimed at the fort. It didn’t suffer a scratch. The Federal boys had to self-inflict the battle damage to sell their story. One of the officers hurt himself with black powder doing so. His injuries were deemed worthy of a Purple Heart. (!)

    Again: Catch 22.

    The newspaper of record was, of course, at the heart of the Confederate cause: to wit the preservation and expansion of the Peculiar Institution was the primary reason for dissolution of the Union.

    It was the ONLY states right that was at issue.

  25. Liberty Wolf Says:

    This feels to me like the deliberate destruction of this country. No words –

    And, yes — I do believe that the goal is to turn Texas blue, and the day that happens we know we are in trouble.

  26. RickZ Says:

    What would really kick Barky’s ass is if Perry called other governors and asked for their National Guard be sent to Texas to protect and defend the border. Talk about a revolt against Emperor Empty Suit’s policies!

  27. Ymarsakar Says:

    If today Texas decided to cut its ties to the union and go its own way as an independent nation would you favor DC attacking Texas, defeating the lone stars, and forcing the defeated to vote blue forever more???

    Texas would have to be dumb, stupid, and blind not to realize that they need force of arms to backup whatever independence they have, not only from Mexican drug cartels by DC.

    Thus Southerners that thought South Carolina going All Out Slavery Mode was going to cause peace (with the weakling North), lived in a very dumb and stupid world. They either knew, or if they didn’t know, their leaders that brought war to them knew and used them.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge