• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

they're still comin'

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,007
Likes
12,688
Location
USA
... Immigrants and locals both should learn the Constitution. I agree on this one.
...
I will address just this one comment, rather than get into all the other stuff with you. As I see it, the biggest threat unlimited immigration brings is to the Constitution. I think it’s entirely possible, if not probable, that unlimited immigration is being used as a battering ram on the Constitution. A battering ram against sovereignty, with certainty, but also against every God given right we possess. The more people raised in foreign countries that were indoctrinated on their principles that saturate our country, the less understanding and support for the USC there will be, so we not only have our elected government people eroding it’s power and authority as a guiding document, but we have fewer and fewer people who know what it means and desire to defend it. Freedom goes away, diminished every day till all that’s left is government power. Economics be damned; without the US Constitution, the United States of America just goes away.
 

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,420
Likes
7,923
Location
south east
Total strawman. Recognizing they're not enemy soldiers is not the same as saying "open the gates", is it?
You said the video proved they were enemy soldiers. it does not.
There are close to 20,000 of them at the border now, and another 15,000 on the move again from Honduras and other countries
There's no way to control them if they're allowed to enter.
They don't speak English
They have no money
They have few, if any skill sets, that would make them a valuable asset to our economy
They have a myriad of communicable diseases (TB is huge)
They would take all Medicaid/Medicare/SNAP resources
They would gut our healthcare system
The US spends $150B/yr on immigrants today - add those 35,000 to the payroll
Whichever states they were allowed to INVADE would be decimated within a few months.
Whatever crime rate exists in any states would grow exponentially
Of the 20,000 at the border today, it is estimated that 90% are males between ages of 17 - 40.
They do not need AR-15s to be defined as enemy soldiers
If it makes you feel any better, we will happily redefine them as enemies of the American economy or enemies of the well being of America in general




11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They’re Hypocrites

written by RJ Eskow / AlterNet September 11, 2013

AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Flipboard
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to MoreShare to Email


We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite, but there’s an easy way to find out.


Libertarians have a problem. Their political philosophy all but died out in the mid- to late-20th century, but was revived by billionaires and corporations that found them politically useful. And yet libertarianism retains the qualities that led to its disappearance from the public stage, before its reanimation by people like the Koch brothers: It doesn’t make any sense.

They call themselves “realists” but rely on fanciful theories that have never predicted real-world behavior. They claim that selfishness makes things better for everybody, when history shows exactly the opposite is true. They claim that a mythical “free market” is better at everything than the government is, yet when they really need government protection, they’re the first to clamor for it.

SPONSORED
That’s no reason not to work with them on areas where they’re in agreement with people like me. In fact, the unconventionality of their thought has led libertarians to be among this nation’s most forthright and outspoken advocates for civil liberties and against military interventions.

Merriam-Webster defines “hypocrisy” as “feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.” We aren’t suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite. But there’s an easy way to find out.

The Other Libertarianism


First, some background. There is a kind of libertarianism that’s nothing more or less than a strain in the American psyche, an emotional tendency toward individualism and personal liberty. That’s fine and even admirable.

We’re talking about the other libertarianism, the political philosophy whose avatar is the late writer Ayn Rand. It was once thought that this extreme brand of libertarianism, one that celebrates greed and even brutality, had died in the early 1980s with Rand herself. Many Rand acolytes had already gone underground, repressing or disavowing the more extreme statements of their youth and attempting to blend in with more mainstream schools of thought in respectable occupations.

There was a good reason for that. Randian libertarianism is an illogical, impractical, inhumane, unpopular set of Utopian ravings which lacks internal coherence and has never predicted real-world behavior anywhere. That’s why, reasonably enough, the libertarian movement evaporated in the late 20th century, its followers scattered like the wind.

Pay to Play

But the libertarian movement has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, and there’s a simple reason for that: money, and the personal interests of some people who have a lot of it. Once relegated to drug-fueled college-dorm bull sessions, political libertarianism suddenly had pretensions of legitimacy. This revival is Koch-fueled, not coke-fueled, and exists only because in political debate, as in so many other walks of life, cash is king.

The Koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute, the other public face of libertarianism. Financiers have also seeded a number of economics schools, think tanks, and other institutions with proponents of their brand of libertarianism. It’s easy to explain why some of these corporate interests do it. It serves the self-interest of the environmental polluters, for example, to promote a political philosophy which argues that regulation is bad and the market will correct itself. And every wealthy individual benefits from tax cuts for the rich. What better way to justify that than with a philosophy that says they’re rich because they’re better—and that those tax cuts help everybody?

The rise of the Silicon Valley economy has also contributed to the libertarian resurgence. A lot of Internet billionaires are nerds who suddenly find themselves rich and powerful, and they’re emotionally and intellectually inclined toward libertarianism’s geeky and unrealistic vision of a free market. In their minds its ideas are "heuristic," "autologous" and "cybernetic"—all of which has inherent attraction in their culture.

The only problem is: It’s only a dream. At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify.

The Libertarian Hypocrisy Test

That’s where the Libertarian Hypocrisy Test comes in. Let’s say we have a libertarian friend, and we want to know whether or not he’s hypocritical about his beliefs. How would we go about conducting such a test? The best way is to use the tenets of his philosophy to draw up a series of questions to explore his belief system.

The Cato Institute’s overview of key libertarian concepts mixes universally acceptable bromides like the "rule of law” and “individual rights” with principles that are more characteristically libertarian—and therefore more fantastical. Since virtually all people support the rule of law and individual rights, it is the other concepts which are uniquely libertarian and form the basis of our first few questions.

The Institute cites “spontaneous order,” for example, as “the great insight of libertarian social analysis.” Cato defines that principle thusly:

“… (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.”​
To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where, exactly? Libertarians define “spontaneous order” in a very narrow way—one that excludes demonstrations like the Arab Spring, elections which install progressive governments, or union movements, to name three examples. And yet each of these things are undertaken by individuals who "coordinated their actions with those of others" to achieve our purposes.

So our first hypocrisy test question is, Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?

Cato also trumpets what it calls “The Virtue of Production” without ever defining what production is. Economics defines the term, but libertarianism is looser with its terminology. That was easier to get away with in the Industrial Age, when “production” meant a car, or a shovel, or a widget.

Today nearly 50 percent of corporate profits come from the financial sector—that is, from the manipulation of money. It’s more difficult to define “production,” and even harder to find its “virtue,” when the creation of wealth no longer necessarily leads to the creation of jobs, or economic growth, or anything except the enrichment of a few.

Which seems to be the point. Cato says, “Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.”

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

The bankers who collude to deceive their customers, as US bankers did with the MERS mortgage system, were permitted to do so by the unwillingness of government to regulate them. The customers who were the victims of deception were essential to the production of Wall Street wealth. Why don’t libertarians recognize their role in the process, and their right to administer their own affairs?

That right includes the right to regulate the bankers who sell them mortgages. Libertarians say that the “free market” will help consumers. “Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people’s economic choices is minimized,” says Cato.

But victims of illegal foreclosure are neither “freer” nor “more prosperous” after the government deregulation which led to their exploitation. What’s more, deregulation has led to a series of documented banker crimes that include stockholder fraud and investor fraud. That leads us to our next test of libertarian hypocrisy: Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?

Digital Libertarians

But few libertarians are as hypocritical as the billionaires who earned their fortunes in the tech world. Government created the Internet. Government financed the basic research that led to computing itself. And yet Internet libertarians are among the most politically extreme of them all.

Perhaps none is more extreme than Peter Thiel, who made his fortune with PayPal. In one infamous rant, Thiel complained about allowing women and people he describes as "welfare beneficiaries” (which might be reasonably interpreted as “minorities”) to vote. “Since 1920,” Thiel fulminated, “the extension of the franchise to (these two groups) have turned ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron."

With this remark, Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don’t like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.

On this score, at least, Thiel is no hypocrite. He’s willing to freely say what others only think: Democracy should be replaced by the rule of wealthy people like himself.

But how did Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks—after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government.

By that standard, Thiel and his fellow “digital libertarians” are hypocrites of genuinely epic proportion. Which leads us to our next question: Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?

Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws. By why only these two? If the mythical free market can solve any problem, including protecting the environment, why can’t it also protect us from foreign invaders and defend the copyrights that make these libertarians wealthy?

For that matter, why should these libertarians be allowed to hold patents at all? If the free market can decide how best to use our national resources, why shouldn’t it also decide how best to use Peter Thiel’s ideas, and whether or not to reward him for them? After all, if Thiel were a true Randian libertarian he’d use his ideas in a more superior fashion than anyone else—and he would be more ruthless in enforcing his rights to them than anyone else. Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?

Size Matters

Our democratic process is highly flawed today, but that’s largely the result of corruption from corporate and billionaire money. And yet, libertarians celebrate the corrupting influence of big money. No wonder, since the same money is keeping their movement afloat and paying many of their salaries. But, aside from the naked self-interest, their position makes no sense. Why isn’t a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of “spontaneous order”? Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?

We’re told that “big government” is bad for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is too large to be responsive. But if big governments are bad, why are big corporations so acceptable? What’s more, these massive institutions have been conducting an assault on the individual and collective freedoms of the American people for decades. Why isn’t it important to avoid the creation of monopolies, duopolies and syndicates that interfere with the free market’s ability to function?

Libertarians are right about one thing: Unchecked and undemocratic force is totalitarian. A totalitarian corporation, or a totalitarian government acting in concert with corporations, is at least as effective at suppressing the “spontaneous order” as a non-corporate totalitarian government. Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?

Extra Credit Questions

Most libertarians prefer not to take their philosophy to its logical conclusions. While that may make them better human beings, it also shadows them with the taint of hypocrisy.

Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” That raises another test for our libertarian: Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?

There’s no reason not to form alliances with civil libertarians, or to shun them as human beings. Their erroneous thinking often arises from good impulses. But it is worth asking them one final question for our test.

Libertarianism would have died out as a philosophy if it weren’t for the funding that’s been lavished on the movement by billionaires like Thiel and the Kochs and corporations like ExxonMobil. So our final question is: If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?

https://www.alternet.org/2013/09/11-questions-you-should-ask-libertarians-see-if-theyre-hypocrites/
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,166
Likes
12,697
Location
Seattle
Oh, if we only had one-world-government (AKA: New World Order) we would have no need for walls and borders. We would all be citizens of this planet Earth and could live wherever we wanted to. <Doesn't that sound delicious?>

Everyone could move to the area of their choice and live happily ever after. <sparkles twinkle and shine> love love love, right?
one world government
one world religion
one world language
one world moving forward in harmony

That's what y'all want?
I think y'all need a good acid trip.

JMSO,
BF
 

Hystckndle

CONFORMADAPTKICKSOMEASS!!!
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
7,196
Likes
8,294
Location
Central Florida
# , on average,
apprehended at the borders each year,
trying illegal entry.
I think its between 750k and 1 million.
Been down last year or so.
Ya can check that.
Pea brain in action.
Per year.
# of weapons sales applications TURNED DOWN because peeps did NOT pass purchase docs we have....
I.e. false docs, other background problems etc.
In 2018
Close to 8 million.
Check that too.
Per year.

Do some math.

Yeah, if ya don t have skin in the game...
Actually
live here, have a business here, have a family here, engage in commerce here, own property here, etc etc.
Not need or want to protect what your forefathers worked for, you yourself have worked hard and with others to obtain, hold, share voluntarily and to have and pass down to future generations...
It is pretty darn easy to idealize the world as we know it and ramble on.
Regards to all,
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,087
Likes
3,316
Yeah, if ya don t have skin in the game...
So if I own land in a border state will you then agree with all of my ideas?

I think it’s entirely possible, if not probable, that unlimited immigration is being used as a battering ram on the Constitution.
I think that's a very good question. Let's take a look at that. The US had unlimited immigration from 1783-1921.
What were the negative effects on the Constitution during that span of years due to immigrants?

Economics be damned; without the US Constitution, the United States of America just goes away.
I agree 100% with that.

Let's name the real "battering rams" against the Constitution: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, the National Security Act of 1947, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, the Patriot Act of 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

All of the major assaults on the Constitution have occurred after the government adopted strict immigration quotas. But besides that, not one of the above named "battering rams" were the constructions of undocumented immigrants.
 
Last edited:

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,007
Likes
12,688
Location
USA
So if I own land in a border state will you then agree with all of my ideas?



I think that's a very good question. Let's take a look at that. The US had unlimited immigration from 1783-1921.
What were the negative effects on the Constitution during that span of years due to immigrants?



I agree 100% with that.

Let's name the real "battering rams" against the Constitution: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, the National Security Act of 1947, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, the Patriot Act of 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

All of the major assaults on the Constitution have occurred after the government adopted strict immigration quotas. But besides that, not one of the above named "battering rams" were the constructions of undocumented immigrants.
America had unlimited immigration from 1783-1921. I’ll take your word on the dates. But, who was America importing as immigrants during that time period? Vast numbers of people who were born and raised on and saturated with the concepts of Christianity and Western Civilization. Not so now. And you forgot to add all the free shit laws created by the Rats from the sixties forward. Very corrosive to freedom and economic stability and the main reason so many want to come here now.

Agree with you entirely on the FRA, the RA, the NSA, The SSA, the BSA, the FISA and everything else. That’s the other side of the equation to this whole problem. Our anti-American, money grubbing political class.
 

Hystckndle

CONFORMADAPTKICKSOMEASS!!!
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
7,196
Likes
8,294
Location
Central Florida
So if I own land in a border state will you then agree with all of my ideas?

I think that's a very good question. Let's take a look at that. The US had unlimited immigration from 1783-1921.
What were the negative effects on the Constitution during that span of years due to immigrants?

I agree 100% with that.

Let's name the real "battering rams" against the Constitution: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, the National Security Act of 1947, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, the Patriot Act of 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

All of the major assaults on the Constitution have occurred after the government adopted strict immigration quotas. But besides that, not one of the above named "battering rams" were the constructions of undocumented immigrants.
No, I will not. But thanks for asking.
But, check it out, if anyone is taking a survey,
in the whole thread, all these pages,
post # 1137, by you,
and previously liked by myself and a few others,
Is one of the best and about the only practical readily available
we could do it kind of solution on the whole thread put forth so far.
Just saying and JMHO.
Regards to all.
 

Hystckndle

CONFORMADAPTKICKSOMEASS!!!
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
7,196
Likes
8,294
Location
Central Florida
OK, let's talk some real solutions here.

1. Immigrants become ineligible for food stamps, free medical care, and free education.
2. A new type of visa is created that allows an individual to come work, play, or retire in the US. The individual can stay as long as they want
but cannot vote. This visa will be cheap, easy to get, and not require a long waiting time.
3. People wanting to become US Citizens have to go through a different process that focuses on understanding and committing to individual
rights, as per the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

That's it.
This one.
I think you meant Illegal or undocumented in # 1 though. That is how I read it anyways.
Same with # 2 , # 2 being non citizen, but documented is required is what you were getting at.
# 3 is very cool and even a plus to the process now which has become more watered down
 
Last edited:

Pyramid

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,813
Likes
2,259
Location
The 57th State
Let's name the real "battering rams" against the Constitution: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, the National Security Act of 1947, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, the Patriot Act of 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
Concoction of and implementation of Social Security should be added to your list IMHO. Two Important facts about SS when it was signed into law by FDR in 1935:

1. The retirement age to collect SS benefits at the time the SS program was signed into law was age 65.
2. The life expectancy at the time the SS program was signed into law was 58 for men, 62 for women.

Thus, most people were never intended to collect SS benefits that they were forcefully coerced into paying to the system from their paychecks. It was indeed a tax to nowhere for most that they would probably never see another dime of.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,087
Likes
3,316
This one.
I think you meant Illegal or undocumented in # 1 though. That is how I read it anyways.
Same with # 2 , # 2 being non citizen, but documented is required is what you were getting at.
# 3 is very cool and even a plus to the process now which has become more watered down
Actually I meant illegal and legal both should be ineligible for welfare, but if you wanted to go with only illegal, that would still be a good start.
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
5,700
Likes
5,271
Wow, an actual twitter fight

why do my finger tips hurt so much
:winks2:

I should actually be ecstatic but still I'm
Hmmmmm
more static:
where's the arrests?
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
5,700
Likes
5,271
Speaking of Walls, anyone else see this?

It's really quite incomprehensible




This is the shit we already paid for...the incompetence is so damaging as to be irreparable
It all needs to be conquered again

make it bloody for all to see, is the best I got

'cause otherwise, we don't deserve it, any of it


but the ride was o.k., while it lasted, yeah?


being real
:dog:
 

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,420
Likes
7,923
Location
south east
Mexico to reinforce southern border as another migrants’ caravan sets out





News

Interior Secretary Sánchez: preparing for another caravan.



Measures will ensure safe and orderly arrival, interior secretary says


Tuesday, January 8, 2019

The federal government is reinforcing the southern border after hearing reports that a new caravan of migrants is set to leave Central America by mid-January, intending to travel north through Mexico to the United States.
Interior Secretary Olga Sánchez Cordero explained that measures are under way to guarantee that the migrants’ entry into Mexico is safe, orderly and regulated.
The 12 established entry points at the southern border are to be reinforced, she continued, as will the surveillance of 379 illegal crossings that have been detected.

The federal government’s new migrant policy establishes several requirements for migrants, such as providing personal information that includes biometric data, the reason for their entry and official identification, Sánchez said.
Anyone who fails to comply will be deported.
All requests for entry are to be processed within 72 hours, and should conclude with the issuing of either work permits or humanitarian visas.
Undersecretary for human rights Alejandro Encinas Rodríguez said migrants who want to cross Mexico to reach the United States must have a visa issued by that country or they will not be allowed in.

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/another-migrants-caravan-sets-out/
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,565
Likes
34,427
Location
Qmerica
weaponized immigration is a globalist strategy to eliminate national sovereignty.

Build The Wall!
Very laconic description RJ!
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,565
Likes
34,427
Location
Qmerica

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
6,450
Likes
9,942
Nancy Pelosi has a wall around her personal residence and now she just built another wall....

NPwall.jpg


She's not against walls when they are her idea.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
6,450
Likes
9,942

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
6,450
Likes
9,942
I'm sorry but did they vote yea or nope?
From the context of the post, I assume they voted FOR a bill that didn't include funding for a border wall.
They voted like a DEM.

Nuff said.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
6,450
Likes
9,942

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
6,450
Likes
9,942
NM Border Residents Discuss Security Crisis, Crime On Southern Border: “We Have A Crisis Down Here” (4 min 59 sec):


Published on Jan 24, 2019
Investigative reporter Chris Ramirez reports on the security crisis and crime on the southern border in New Mexico. He speaks with New Mexico border residents about the security challenges on the border, with one resident noting, “we have a crisis down here.” The report ran on the local New Mexico NBC news station KOB 4 on 1/24/19.