Our detention center

Outside Mexico’s nasty detention center in Chiapas.

AFTER PRESIDENT Trump put the fear of God into our nincompoop president who’s known by his initials, AMLO, Mexico ceased to be such a straight-through conduit for illegal aliens coming from Central America bound for the United States border.

Many are currently housed in a miserable detention center in Chiapas while their requests for asylum in Mexico pass through a labyrinthine process that is not intended to be smooth. Mexico clearly wants them to go back where they came from.

And that is what they should do.

Asylum from what? Lousy economic conditions. That’s what.

I sympathize with these people. There, but for the grace of God, etc. There is no easy solution to their plight, but ignoring laws and sneaking into another country is not the answer, and that is exactly what they planned to do on the U.S. border, and what they’ve done for decades until there were so many illegals that Americans had it up to here, and that led, to a huge degree, to Donald Trump’s winning the presidency.

It was likely the main thing that installed him in the Oval Office. That and his fun, no-nonsense, personality. If you’re an open-borders advocate, you’ve got yourself to blame for the Trump presidency. The culprit is you, amigo.

America simply cannot toss open the door to the world’s poor. It is a noble aim — Christian even — but an absolutely unrealistic one. The American taxpayer is not the disorganized world’s sugar daddy.

But America was built by immigrants, you say! Quite so, but during the days of Ellis Island they came legally, and they supported themselves after settling somewhere. Today’s much-used buffet of taxpayer-funded social programs did not exist. This is a crucial difference.

You can read more about the miserable detention center right here.

20 thoughts on “Our detention center

  1. You have stated an ugly truth, señor. And, one too often ignored or misstated.

    Surely, there is some way we Gringo types (though our government emissaries) can find a way to help (all) these folks in their home countries. The key word is help, not support.

    And up here North of the Rio Bravo, we could have an immigration policy that allows better for many (especially Mexicans) to enter for work. The Bracero Program in the 1940s and 1950s did a pretty good job of that.

    We would all benefit from the above-mentioned changes.


    1. Ricardo: Find a way to help all those folks in their home countries? Some, maybe. All, nah. It would be a task too large.

      I was in the Air Force in California’s agricultural heartland, the San Joaquin Valley, during the final years of the Bracero Program. I saw it first-hand. I imagine most all of them returned to Mexico when they were supposed to back then, but we now live in a different era with different attitudes.

      A couple of years ago I read an excellent column that pointed out in great detail that the United States has one of the most generous and open immigration systems in the world. Many, likely most, people think it’s the opposite, but it’s not. I wish I had saved that article.


  2. I agree that Trump was capable of saying what his voters have been thinking for a long time and able to answer with words that didn’t come out like mush mouth. I have no answers to long-term immigration policies other than to say we should never have open borders.


  3. From Zero Hedge: “The $2 trillion coronavirus crisis bill that passed the Senate includes a $350 million dollar injection of cash for “Migration and Refugee Assistance,” despite the fact that open borders contributed to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place.”

    And, I see China and Russia are now closing their borders. Will CNN call them “racist” for doing this?


  4. Never let a good crisis go to waste. I think that works out to something like $31.81 per each illegal immigrant in the country. I am not sure just what that will do for anyone. This bill had more pork in it than my uncle’s pigpen.

    The Democrats’ answer to everything is, “What is in it for us.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Do you remember the old commercial for Burger King, an elderly woman asking, “Where’s the beef?” Could Mr. Gill please point out “where’s the pork?”


    1. “Where’s the beef?” was a Wendy’s commercial, not Burger King. Not that it matters or, as Hillary said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”


      1. Thirsty: How right you are, as a moment of internet sleuthing reveals. It was Wendy’s. You are a sharp observer indeed. Thanks for setting things straight.


  6. It looks like the government is going to dump money on us. I read that if you have a record of direct deposit with the IRS, they will drop it into your account. Otherwise, it may take four months to get a check, and by then, God only knows who will be alive or dead. Don’t hold your breath.


    1. The shame of all this money being spent is, regardless of need, everyone is getting. My wife and I both receive Social Security which we are easily able to live on. We don’t need another $2400.
      This virus aid started at $800 billion, and finally got passed at $2.2 trillion. I know the $350 million for immigration aid is far less than 1% of the total, but the man who said the cure will be worse than the disease will be correct.

      Your detention centers make ours look like country clubs or day spas.


      1. Dave: Our detention center is apparently the largest in Latin America. That likely does not mean much because I don’t imagine other nations in this end of the world have much in the way of detention centers or any detention centers at all. And yes, our miserable facility would cause whiny, American leftists to get dizzy from the vapors.

        If the U.S. government is going to send out that Kung Flu cash willy-nilly, that’s what is done with Social Security, which is bad. There should be means-testing for SS. There probably isn’t time for means-testing with this Kung Flu cash, however.


    2. Señor Gill: I’m hoping they’ll send cash to me too down where I am, but who knows?

      But, this has nothing to do with the topic of the post. Again! Don’t make me come up there. It could get ugly!


  7. It’s been more than a year since the last time I visited and I see that old habits die hard. I chuckled at how predictable some of the posts have become, so I will admit that your blog still delivers on the entertainment front. I’m not sure why I think it’s necessary to point this out, when I know you will likely ignore these facts, but the vast majority of migrants to the USA today, just as the ones who came before, still “settle somewhere and support themselves”. Every serious study that has looked at the issue finds that migrants have a net positive economic impact and also increase tax revenue. This nonsense of migrants moving to the U.S. at the taxpayer expense is not backed up by a single reliable source. Not one.


    1. Juan: Welcome back. You are doing what so many do, conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. Very different issues. While legal immigrants likely do support themselves, becoming contributing members of society, illegal aliens are just that. Lawbreakers. And there are millions of them, so many in some areas that they are altering the nation’s face and culture. While you may think that’s a good thing, I and many others do not.

      But even legal immigrants present problems, especially Mohammedans in places like Minnesota. But I digress. The principal problem is illegal immigration and, thanks to the Trump administration, that is falling.

      I am glad you still find me entertaining. That is, to a great extent, the reason I ramble on here so much and for so many years.


Comments are closed.