Dewhurst Immigration Solution All Wet, Intern Says

Intern James Bright attended today’s talk by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst at D World Headquarters. And he has a bone or two to pick with the lieutenant governor on illegal immigration:

David Dewhurst stopped by D’s office today to let us know about his perfect plan to solve any and all immigration problems: increase border patrol. Well, since this idea has been put out there pretty much forever, and virtually every opinion writer in the nation has given their two cents on the idea, I figured why not throw my thoughts into the mix.

According to Dewhurst, there are approximately 7,000 miles of border and roughly 19,000 current border patrol agents protecting our land. He says that tripling the number of security personal will effectively solve the issues of illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, and people with passports from “terrorist countries” like Libya and Syria coming into the United States.

OK, maybe increasing border patrol agents would stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border at less populated areas across the border. But where’s the money to fund these agents going to come from? We are currently paying billions of dollars a week to service the needs of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no interest in paying more taxes to keep non-dangerous people from crossing the border and working jobs that I frankly have no interest in.

Then there’s the drug war. Dewhurst says whenever there has been a surge of agents in an area, illegal activity has declined dramatically. Well, the thing is, the Los Zetas and La Familia cartels are operating primarily out of border towns, and have been successfully doing it for some time. El Paso and Laredo have plenty of protection, but drug trafficking has not stopped there. I don’t see how throwing more people into a war zone is going to solve this issue. Members of these cartels have no fear of authority–whether it’s a police officer or a Navy Seal.

Lastly, there are those pesky terrorists. Now I’ll admit there have been reports of members of terrorist organizations being caught on the Texas/Mexico border. But Dewhurst’s sentiments that pointed out countries like Libya and Syria are downright racist. These two countries are in upheaval, so of course people are leaving. They’re called refugees. And, yes, they’re going through Latin and South American countries, because immigration policies there are a bit less strict than ours. My problem is with the implications of Dewhurst’s statements. Not all of these people are terrorists. In fact the large–and I do mean large–majority, are not terrorists. To preface this problem with the statement, “people with passports from terrorists countries,” is not only ridiculous, it’s racist.

Truthfully, I’m not sure why any of this surprised me. I mean, Dewhurst has been Gov. Rick Perry’s buddy and cabana boy for some time. I just hope he’s not the post-Perry governor, because right now the only thing that seems worse than a Texas run by Perry is one run by Dewhurst.


  • B. L. Powell

    Leveling an accusation of racism not once, but twice against anyone – much less a state official – should not be undertaken lightly. Tim: did you counsel James about this? These are the kinds of words that follow young journalists, especially in an age where every word one types is searchable and tied forevermore to his byline. Perhaps Bright meant to say Mr. Dewhurst is “mistaken” or “grossly inaccurate” about his characterization of Lybian and Syrian refugees unlawfully crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to escape violent civil and political unrest at home. I think he should be given a chance to revise this to include more precise language.

    I’m sure things I’ve written will haunt me as well. I tend to share too many of my personal beliefs in print.

    But prudence demands careful consideration of one’s rhetoric, even if it’s meant to be inflammatory.

  • B. L. Powell

    Sorry Glenn – I meant to ask whether you counseled your intern on this, not Tim.

  • I had nothing to do with this post. Except for making this comment.

  • Pseudohein

    Still your fault Rogers. Somehow.

  • Brenda Marks

    His use of the term may be harsh, but his points are valid. More border patrol is just the standard Texas Republican Party talking point. Nothing new here. And does Dewhurst realize that it takes more money and effort to train a border patrol agent than any other type of agent in the federal government and their wash out rate is extremely high? They have to master language training, and then they are out in the middle of nowhere alone for hours and days on end. Maybe we should volunteer Dewhurst and Perry for the job.

  • Glenn Hunter

    @B.L Powell: Yes, B.L., James and I did discuss that point. While it’s not my view that Dewhurst’s comment indicated racism–and apparently not yours, either–this was Bright’s report, and he saw racism reflected in Dewhurst’s language. And now, everybody’s free to disagree.

  • Daniel

    He’s a small-government conservative who will hire 40,000 more government employees to combat the moral pestilence that is the landscaping industry. Plus the Libyans who are sneaking in to hate our freedom.

    Good for business. Bad for Mexicans. That’s great for Texas. That’s David Dewhurst. (TM) paidforbytheblahblahblah

  • Caleb Slinkard

    Lets see: categorizing an entire nation as a terrorist country seems to fit squarely in the category of racism. It’s certainly patently offensive and completely uninformed. Coming from a high-ranking public official, these comments deserve a harsh response.

    Government officials should be held up to higher scrutiny than private citizens. Criticism should come more swiftly and much more strongly for their public comments, particularly on sensitive issues such as border control.

  • B. L. Powell

    @Caleb: Maybe it makes Dewhurst a xenophobe. But not a racist.

  • Doug

    Speaking of standard talking points, this post was chock full of them, James might want to wait until he’s capable of having an original thought before writing anything again. As for the charges of racism, what James is really saying is that everything Dewhurst said is correct and James has no rebuttal, so he throws out the racism accusation to try to shut Dewhurst up. Maybe James will realize what a fool he looks like when he throws around the race card when he grows up.

  • Doug

    Lets see: categorizing an entire nation as a terrorist country seems to fit squarely in the category of racism. It’s certainly patently offensive and completely uninformed. Coming from a high-ranking public official, these comments deserve a harsh response.

    You do realize that the US State Department has been listing nations as sponsors of terrorism for 30 years now don’t you? And that Syria is on the list right now? Libya was removed form the list a few years ago, so if you want to criticize him for wrongly including it, that’s valid, the racism charges are just idiotic.

  • Doug and Dewhurst share what I call fence/ladder disease.

    The border discussion is the best tool we have for diagnosing it. Those with the disease assume a higher fence will fix the problem. The rest of us understand that a higher fence only creates the need for a taller ladder. a higher fence literally escalates the problem instead of fixing it.

    An interesting fact about fence/ladder disease is it is age related. Only infants and aged seem to be crippled by it.

    All we have to do is look at the communists to see the border fences not only suck, they are a stupid idea proposed by stupid people.

    The border answer is simple. Open it.

    The beautiful thing about that is we eliminate a lot of problems for both countries. If the border is opened then Norte Americanos will want to go down there where the weather, people, and economy is so much more welcoming. Their presence will provide jobs and initiate economical growth.

    The open border will also do a very good thing here when it comes to jobs. One of the downward pressures on wages here is the illegals are forced to work for substandard wages because of their illegality. Open border means they can work legally and compete heads up for work.

    This is a great thing for employers. They can get the best person for the job. It’s also great for the labor pool because immigrants without education or job skills will be competing on a level playing field with our non-educated without job skills. It makes the American dream a reality. The one where you get ahead because of your own effort etc and so on.

    Oh, the drug thing? That’s our problem and we need to fix that ourselves.

    But once again we have the fence/ladder dipshits in charge there too.

    Now I appreciate an open border will hurt Texas financially short term. I mean think about it, how many snow birds will stay in south Texas with rednecks when they can go south a couple of hundred miles and live in paradise?

  • Love It

    “If the border is opened then Norte Americanos will want to go down there where the weather, people, and economy is so much more welcoming.”

    Really? If it is so rosy and welcoming in Mexico, – do you think you can convince the 18+ million criminals that have currently invaded this country to go back home and take the anchor babies that are decimating our economy with them?

  • Love It, in your case I think it would be step stool/planter wall disease. Mark Davisitis.

  • Carter Class of ’72

    Harvey Lacey, you don’t know the first thing about Mexican law regarding foreigners, do you? Particularly in regard to business and property ownership or participation in local politics. Short answer: it isn’t allowed. It’s not like here in the United States where once one has acquired a green card all things are possible.

    And your reference to Communist border fences is probably the most historically ignorant thing I’ve read in recent memory. They worked just fine for their builders. They prevented their citizens from escaping to freedom.

  • Big Bud Goode

    I think if the good Lt-Gov would come by and smoke some good Mexican weed with me, we could work all of this out, just the two of us. In fact, that is a great solution for world peace. We should get Obama, Rick Perry, and Putin together for some nice bubonic chronic, and I’m talking hydro pal.

  • Sammy

    Dewhurst was formerly a fairly sane person, but the last few years he’s been so busy rolling out ideas that are so blatantly pandering to whichever group is currently controlling the Republican party (right-wing religious, xenophobes, tea partiers, whomever is next) that it’s laughable.

    @Carter: Didn’t Mexico recently change their landowner laws to allow non-citizens to own property?

  • friday

    Doesn’t seem racist to me, but also doesn’t solve the border problem.

  • Carter Class of ’72

    @Sammy: That would be news to me. My understanding has always been that non-citizens could only own property in partnership with a Mexican national, and even then only as a minority shareholder.

  • Cynthia

    @Carter: You are wrong. Americans can own property in Mexico now. I personally know people who own property in San Miguel de Allende.

  • Carter Class of ’72

    @Cynthia: Okay. After doing a quick search, you’re correct. But after doing some reading it still doesn’t sound quite as secure a deal as purchasing property here in the States, particularly within what the Mexicans refer to as the “Restricted Zone.” Can the people you know own their property in San Miguel for more than 100 years? That point was unclear in my brief research.

    Still, I’ve added more info to the personal knowledge base. Thanks.

  • Carter, you think the Berlin Wall was a stroke of genius, eh?

  • Carter, the problem with US citizens owning property in Mexico is the same ones Mexicanos have with owning property in Mexico.

    It’s a similar problem to what Haiti has. After the revolution the deeds were never really sorted out and made legal. So the biggest bully is one that decides who owns what. That bully might be a drug lord, the government, whatever, but the fact is title to property that is iron clad is hard to come by.

    Most Mexcicanos that are here really don’t want to bring their kids to Estados Unidos and for good reason. Down there they still respect family. They especially respect fathers.

    What they want is to make a living. I can relate to that. I worked here in Tejas doing contract telco work back in the eighties because there was no work for me in California. I know what it is like to live as cheap as possible so that as much money as possible is sent back home for the family.

    One of the good things about an open border is workers in Mexico that want to compete for the big bucks in Estados Unidos can come up here and compete on a level playing field. On the other hand the Gringos down there will provide work for those who would rather live close to home. It’s a win-win.

    Unless of course your passion is for fences and you don’t really understand the why of ladders.

  • Glenn Hunter

    @harvey lacey: If the illegals working in the U.S.–and I believe it takes bravery and initiative to come here–don’t want to bring their kids along because they “still respect family” especially fathers in Mexico, why do (so many of) the fathers split up their families and deprive the children of their presence during the important “formative” years?

  • Neitherparty

    Growing up in el paso, you must clamp down the border. Do this. Then discuss how to proceed. There is no option. Stop prosecuting border patrol for shooting drug dealers (eye W).
    Any funds spent protecting the border in a true way are reaped in illegal (not undocumented or other euphemism) means.
    I’ve seen how Mexico protects it’s southern border….start there.

  • Glenn the answer to that is “formative years” is one of our terms to explain our failures in parenting.

    The father working out of the country or just down the street but all of the time is accepted because that is what fathers do. It is part of his job description to do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially. If he’s out of the country working the sacrifice or burden is shared by the family. The children aren’t told that their father is evil because he works all the time or far away. They are told he is good because he is willing to suffer for the good of the family.

    I’ve had lots of conversations about parenting with Hispanics that I didn’t ask about their legal status here. Their culture is so wise, backwards by our standards, when it comes to child rearing.

    It was an Hispanic that owned three homes in the San Fernando Valley, twenty years as an union laborer, two sons in college, and still illegal that gave me the best lesson about being a father one morning in 1980.

    He said, “Harvey, my sons can’t tell you what I bought them for Christmas two years ago. But they can tell you all about going to Yosemite ten years ago.”

    That lesson is one that I pass on every chance I get to new fathers. “It’s not what you give your kids, it’s what you do with them that matters.”

    There’s another thing about the Hispanic culture that I love when it comes to child rearing. You don’t see many helicopter parents that are Hispanic. Helicopter parenting is to parenting what foot binding was to Chinese women.

  • Neitherparty, you’re blaming the tire and not the nail for the flat.

    There is one solution to all of this.

    You fail a drug test you die.

    Without drug addicts there is no reason to import drugs. Mexico can go back to traditional less lucrative crime. The border can become like any other border anywhere else. And unemployment, what unemployment?

  • Geocynic

    Hey Tim, I like the way this kid thinks. Give him a real job, won’t you?