« Walrus on narcissistic "leaders." | Main | A Prude in Richmond - Ridiculous »

02 May 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Allen Thomson

> I am not interested in punishment of those apprehended here in an illegal status. I am only interested in deporting them expeditiously.

At some point, all other considerations aside, numbers and logistics have to matter. And, if the number of illegals in the US is something like 10 million, mostly Mexican, I find it hard to imagine how either the US or Mexico could cope with the deportation problem at all, let alone expeditiously.

dan of steele
I will say again that the outrage expressed by many is outrage that seeks an end to US control of its own borders

I would like to say that is confusing the issue somewhat. It is not the right approach to securing the borders. If the citizens were united in wanting to keep out unwanted visitors they would do so. As long as there are people in the US who offer jobs, refuge, and other assistance to people who have not the proper documentation, those people will continue to come. There are no walls high enough to keep people out if there are those on both sides who want to facilitate or encourage entry.

Take away the reason for people entering the US without permission and this immigration problem will go away.

perhaps repeal NAFTA, or go after everyone who employes illegals. of course you would also have to be prepared to pay more for fruit and vegetables, processed beef, gardening, maid service and just about every other service.

there is a small chance that US employment might go up as well.

what's not to like?


Col. Lang:

Appreciate your comments. I have a little difficulty, however, understanding how you are using the concept of constituent service in the context of law enforcement.

In a broad sense a community will often define how it wants its citizens to be served by their police. For example, an incorporated city that is largely a bedroom community may prefer that its police officers not incarcerate intoxicated or disorderly citizens but make sure they get home safely even if it means that the officers do the driving.

In the case of the DA the community was not well served when he pushed his nephew on a department who did not believe him qualified. The resulting lawsuit was expensive. Similarly, ignoring the competitive bidding process in order to use a vendor who was a friend of the sheriff was an accident waiting to happen and did.

I also believe that providing security services for the Mayor at taxpayers expense without a clear need to protect against genuine criminal behavior is something better done by Wackenhut.

I also object on principle to the notion that the validity of the beliefs of citizens as to how a law enforcement agency should function is entitled to be heard and tested in court as a matter of law. For me, it's a bit like passengers on a ship being routinely entitled to second guess and take to court the decisions of the ship's Captain even though they may know nothing about the Captain's job.

Although a law may entitle the citizen to take this action it does not require the Captain to continue to serve in the face of such a travesty. Needless to say, when Captains ignore their ethical and professional responsibilities in order to ensure that they get reelected the system is broken. Some, I think, would argue that we as a country are at that point now.

n m salamon

Mr. Lang:

I agree with your take on immigration by and large.
I wish to point to two problems if your prefered desire to deport them all woud succceed:

! ., Immediate you may loose up to 11 million consumers, with dire consequences re housing [empty places if which you already have too much due to foreclosures etc], dire consequences for food reatail, low cost other stores -- more empty malls, more bankrupcies.

2., the problem of demographics - USA whites and Afro-Americans do not reproduce at replacement rate according to USA Census Bureau, which in long term will cause the Japan syndrome too few workers for retirees.

This problem is almost as untractable as the ME I/P fiasco.

Adam L Silverman

Sir and Twisted Genius: There are three overlapping issues in regard to what AZ is doing. 1) The Sheriff of Tucson, who has made it clear he won't enforce the new law because it is largely unnecessary, is doing what you all are describing: when his deputies and/or investigators have a reason to stop someone, if they then have a reason to suspect that person is in the US illegally, then they follow up and if this is the case the individual is turned over to ICE. 2) This is not the case in Maricopa County, which is, essentially, the poster boy example for an out of control elected sheriff. Sheriff Arpaio, one of the people who pushed the just passed legislation behind the scenes has hired the KS attorney (and candidate for KS Secretary of State), who works for INLI, which is the FAIR legal institute and is the actual author of the AZ law - Pearce simply submitted it, to train the Maricopa deputies on how to enforce the new law. Moreover, Korbach, the KS attorney in question, is also the author of the amendment just passed to clarify when an appropriate contact is - he's also got a long history of minority voter suppression activities, which is why AG Ashcroft had to reassign him. Sheriff Arpaio had his ICE accreditation pulled from him because of his out of control conduct, has had the accreditation of his jail pulled because of failure to comply with even the most basic of health requirements, faces over 2,700 civil rights complaints with the Department of Justice, and routinely, working with the Maricopa County attorney, uses his office for political intimidation of city, county, and statewide elected officials, other law enforcement, and has problems understanding where his jurisdiction boundaries end. So this brings us to 3) The real issue here is how does one identify someone as being an illegal? Skin color? Accent? Dress? Shoes? That's the problem - how on a traffic stop in a state with a 30% hispanic population, either born in the US or legally emigrated, are you going to be able to tell that someone is an illegal?

And since the AZ legislature is now working on legislation that would bar teachers with noticeable accents from teaching English as a second language in AZ schools, I'm personally having a little trouble believing that bigotry isn't a driver of this stuff for some of its supporters. There is no doubt that we need to get a handle on border security, illegal entry and immigration, abuse of illegal immigrants for cheap labor and indentured servants, the illicit trade in drugs and people, etc - I just don't see the people that are pushing this bill, or variants of it in legislatures in places like OH, as really that concerned with it. Rather they seem very concerned with making life difficult for all immigrants, or hispanics, or both.


I cannot comment on this issue, but what piques my curiosity are the unintended effects of Arizonas legislation, specifically the economic effects.

It is going to be instructive to watch what happens in Arizona if the law is fully implemented.


The incongruity of the entire Open Borders/Amnesty movement is that Shakira and Ricky Martin are speaking out against this law, Chicago is holding protests, and San Fransisco is pleading with the MLB to not hold the All Star Game in Phoenix.

Meanwhile not a word from the celebrities about the Pinal County deputy who got shot by an AK 47 by drug smugglers (excuse me, undocumented border crossers, just doing the jobs Americans won't), Chicago is asking for the National Guard to help protect its streets, and San Francisco is apparently happy to enforce policies that hurt our black underclass the most to appeal to a brown one.

And then Joe Biden has the sack to complain about the state law. Hey Joe, I used to live in Delaware too. I never heard you raise a peep when the illegal aliens were busy working for Perdue and Tyson chicken in lower Delaware and killed a few of your constituients drunk driving without a license. Not to mention driving down the wages and making it impossible for you to get a job unless you were willing to work for three dollars an hour.

The new euphemism for illegal aliens should be "future Democratic voters".

The more I read about the rest of the country's total hysteria and hypocrisy, the more disgusted I get. Deport them all. I long for the day Operation: Wetback II gets approved.

Patrick Lang


There is no reason that a legal "guest worker" program can not be worked out that would provide the labor and protect all involved.

As I said earlier my preference would be for an arrangement that would de-couple citizenship and residence/economic activity. such an arrangement would also require documentation of individuals and ID cards.

This will not occur because the Mexicans know that if that happened we would soon own their country. pl

Patrick Lang



I see that you live in the NW.

I don't know what sheriffs are like there. Here in the Old Dominion I have experience of the sheriiffian process in two settings, rural Shenandoah County and the incorporated city of Alexandria. In one the sheriff is the law outside of towns like Strasburg (the state police are seldom seen off the interstate I-81). In Alexanria the sheriff's brown clad men are essentially baillifs for the commonwealth courts.

Shenandoah County has around 30,000 inhabitants and Alexandria around 130,000.

In both cases the sheriff is both a law officer and a major local political figure.

In both these jursdictions the sheriff's that I have known were well known to the great majority of citizens. Both the incumbents are local men who had been policemen in the municipal police forces of Alexandria and Strasburg.

We tend to believe here that the law is not an expression of some abstract standard of justice, but rather a reflection of community opinion.

I expect that this situation will persist. pl

Patrick Lang


I have no problem whatever with citizens "second guessing" law enforcement. that is why policemen are now subject to lawsuits for malfeasance and also by citizen review boards. pl

Patrick Lang


Why should life not be made difficult for illegal immigrants? pl

Nancy K

If we are going after illegals we also need to go after those who are enticing them to become illegal, ie meat packing industry, agricultural industry, white families who want cheap nannies for their children, cheap labor to clean their homes, mow their yards and clean their cars, and businesses who can pay less for their toilets to be cleaned.
I am a believer in the right and need for the US to have control of our borders. I also believe that it should not be only the poor illegal who pays the price. Throw the illegal in jail, but throw their employer in also or fine them so heavily that it is not worth it for others to hire illegals or for illegals to cross the border.
Fat chance this will happen.
Also fat chance that all illegals will be rounded up and shipped back to whereever they came from. I live in Southern California. We do not have enough jails or holding area to hold the possibly 1 million or more Mexican illegals, I am not even counting all the Asian illegals, or Europeon illegals. Yes, Europeon, all those visitors or students who came here on holiday and never went back.
As a nurse who worked for Children and Family Services, I must also mention the possibly million children who are now American citizens who will be without parents when theirs are shipped back to where ever they came from.

Adam L Silverman


I'm not saying that life shouldn't be made difficult for illegal immigrants, what I was trying to say, and I apologize if I was less than clear, is that in a state with a 30% hispanic population composed of legal immigrants and US citizens, that some of the people that are supporting the bill are as interested as making life difficult for hispanic US citizens and legal immigrants as they are the illegal ones. There seems to be a portion of the supporters that simply don't like any immigrants or immigration that isn't White, including the person who actually wrote the text of the legislation, and its intended consequence is to make anyone who isn't White's life miserable. This certainly isn't the case for many/most of its supporters - they think this will actually do something about illegal immigration into the US. It won't as the sheriff in Tucson has made clear: this legislation is unnecessary and he flat out stated on MSNBC earlier this week that he believed that it was inherently racist. What this bill does is take the out of control, bully boy tactics of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and seeks to institutionalize them throughout the state. And since the INLI folks are now advising on this legislation in several other states, it seeks to export Sheriff Arpaio's troubling ideas about law enforcement to OH, KY, etc.

Patrick Lang

"some of the people that are supporting the bill are as interested as making life difficult for hispanic US citizens and legal immigrants as they are the illegal ones."

How do you know that? pl

Patrick Lang

Nancy K

Hard hearted bastard that I am, I think we should stop granting citizenship to the children of illegal migrants.

How many countries give their citizenship as easily as we do?

American exceptionalism? Nonsense. pl

Clifford Kiracofe

AT, All,

Congress appears concerned about border violence.

1. "Hearings revive border violence debate as lawmakers ask for troops
By Jordy Yager - 05/02/10 01:50 PM ET
Drug violence in Mexico is expected to get a renewed focus in the Senate this week as a bevy of House members from the southwest region push to send more troops to the border.

The Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control takes the lead on Wednesday as it holds a long-awaited hearing on the drug trafficking violence in Mexico and the immediate implications for the U.S.
At the same time, the Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to examine the government’s crackdown on gun smuggling operations between the U.S. and Mexico during its Wednesday hearing on terrorists and guns.

The renewed attention from the upper chamber comes as a bipartisan group of 17 House lawmakers from the southwest region sent a letter last week to President Barack Obama calling on him to deploy National Guard troops to their home states as part of the “swift and decisive” action needed to combat the violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, which “continues to increase at an alarming rate.” Etc.

2. "Escalating violence on the U.S.-Mexico border has U.S. lawmakers demanding to know what U.S. government agencies are doing to stem the flow of illegal weapons from the United States to Mexico, and prevent narcotics from entering the United States. The situation on the border was the subject of four congressional hearings this week.

With the Mexican government recently sending an additional 3,000 troops to the border with the United States to combat drug cartels, and Mexico's army and police involved in increasingly violent clashes with drug traffickers, U.S. lawmakers - particularly those from border states - are more worried than ever.

California Representative Loretta Sanchez opened one of four hearings on the situation noting that Mexico now has 45,000 troops engaged in a violent struggle, which she noted is about equivalent to the number of troops the United States has in Afghanistan.

"The United States and this Congress cannot ignore our role in assisting our neighbor and our ally in this fight, and of course in preventing that violence in slipping into the United States," she said.

Congressman Mark Souder, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Border Subcommittee, says escalating activities of Mexican drug gangs threaten U.S. border cities and states, and have consequences well beyond the border."...

3. House Hearings 2009

4. Congressional Research Service report on border violence issues:

I would again point out that we went through ALL of this back in the early 1980s during the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation, "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986." Even a cursory review of the hearings and floor speeches/debates would be instructive to those now pondering these issues.

Adam L Silverman


FAIR and its legal institute INLI have been tracked as nativist, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigration (legal as well as illegal) organizations since their inception. FAIR's founder, John Taunton, is associated with a number of White Supremacist movements. Mr. Kobach, the INLI attorney who actually wrote the AZ legislation has a history of vote caging directed at minorities and his duties were reassigned at DOJ as a result. Mr. Pearce, as I indicated in comments to an earlier thread (including links), has been repeatedly identified with a leader in the neo-Nazi movement. Given that Kobach works for Taunton's organization and wrote the bill on behalf of Pearce who openly associates with a known neo-Nazi leader, I think that provides sufficient empirical evidence that several of the people directly behind the legislation don't like anyone who isn't White.

As I've written in comments to earlier posts on this: I think what is happening is that several elites and notables with extremist beliefs are seeking to capitalize on the average citizens fears of crime and violence and are using the issue of illegal immigration as both a wedge into, and a cover for, their much broader anti-Hispanic and nativist agendas. I mispoke before, it is the Pima County sheriff, Sheriff Dupnik, who made the remarks on MSNBC. As he indicates in the article linked to below: "This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

The article, which explains that the crime rates in the towns on AZ's side of the border have been going down over the last several years, can be found here:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html
That isn't itself a reason not to confront and comprehensively deal with the issue of illegal immigration or border security, but it does demonstrate that there has been a lot of political messaging manipulation surrounding this issue.

Adam L Silverman


One either thing, sorry I didn't cram it into my previous response, but the actual number of illegal immigrants in the US has been steadily decreasing - starting back in 2006:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/01/93137/recession-enforcement-driving.html



You sound like an Open Border/Amnesty type who lives no where near the problem or thinks that making the logical leap of "having a porous border with a third world plutocracy that encourages its underclass to go north" would mean more illegal immigration = RACISMS.

Sidney O. Smith III

Without having read the law -- meaning off the cuff -- my gut tells me this law will trigger a strict scrutiny judicial review. Odds of it being held unconstitutional are therefore significant, to say the least.

Barring some radically new approach, again, seal the borders (“yes, we can!” To harken to a campaign slogan that gave feel -good tingling vibes to many). And then, imo, push back on all the exceptions to the 4th amendment. It is as if we are trying to create a secure border by creating exceptions to the 4th amendment until the 4th amendment is the exception and a small one at that.

In other words, at least right now, b/c of porous borders, we try to deal with the illegal immigration problem, including increasing violence spawned by the drug cartels, by creating more exceptions to the 4th amendment that enable more arrests and lead to more deportations.

But, again, what is to stop the illegals from returning? A condition of the sentence, threatening enhanced punishment? Sure…those in the drug cartels will shake in their boots when reading the sentence sheet…

The deported, particularly those criminally inclined, will return. Only the law abiding ones will never return.

So…with a de facto open border…a cycle is created that threatens to leave the constitution in tatters and violence only increasing exponentially. As it now stands, under this approach, the only remedy is to create even more exceptions to the 4th amendment that will lead to even more deportations…and those that are deported return, so, as the wheel turns, the only remedy is to expand the reasons for a a Terry stop and so on and so on, finally demolishing what is left of the 4th amendment.

This fault does not lie with the people of Arizona. Not in the least. The fault lies with the USG. And the fact that the USG has not sealed the borders is prima facie evidence that it does not serve the people of the US. Without secure borders, the people have no choice but to choose that which leans towards a police state.

Sealing the borders, imo, is the number one national security issue in the US. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. IMO, sealing the borders should have been our number one priority since 9-11.

Once the borders are sealed, then step two. Determine the proper policy for those illegals in the US. That is certainly open for debate but, for what it is worth, I am for a strict path to naturalization, as I remain firmly convinced, via experience, that Hispanics make absolutely fantastic American citizens. Like countless other waves of immigrants, they want to participate in the American dream. Hard working. Family oriented. Of that, I am sure.

Adam L Silverman

Tyler: As i've indicated in comments on the previous thread regarding this topic: I've resided in the Southwest, NM to be exact, and I still have strong familial ties to the area. I also grew up in FL, which has a much larger # of illegal immigrants than AZ, largely due to the migrant farmworker community, so I've resided in geographic proximity to the problem in two different parts of the US. As for being in favor of an Open Border/Amnesty, I'm not. I think that we have to have positive control of the border for both security and proper immigration purposes. As to amnesty - honestly I have no good idea how you deal with the 10 million or so illegal immigrants that are here. I'm not sure how all could be rounded up, especially without catching up legal immigrants or US citizens that are of the same national origin as some of the illegals by mistake.

Finally, I've been trying to use as fine a brush as possible here. I do think that the key people behind what AZ is doing - those who have written the legislation, underwritten the passage of it through lobbying, the AZ legislator that submitted it after it was written - certainly have racist intent, or at least demonstrable anti-Hispanic or anti-immigrant bias. I think I've been clear that the vast majority of people who support the legislation do not seem to have those biases or beliefs.

Finally, the legislation that AZ just passed, as opposed to what COL Lang has proposed, what Congress considered and failed to pass back in 2006, is clearly not designed to seal the border, nor is it designed to really stop illegal immigration. What it is designed to do is extend the behavior exhibited by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department to the entire state, harass and intimidate US citizens of Hispanic descent (or who simply look Hispanic), legal, and illegal immigrants, while pushing illegal immigrants into other areas - most likely TX, NM, and CA.

Clifford Kiracofe

1. Might I suggest that we consider the situation from a US federal government perspective taking narcotics and associated crime and violence as one indicator and factor in the overall border security mix.

Dept of Justice has a National Drug Intelligence Center which publishes unclassified reports. There is plenty of open source data available to evaluate for anyone interested.

For example, we can take a 2007 South Texas/Lower Rio Grande Valley HIDTA threat assessment. Note the graphic. (I have relatives in the Lower Rio Grande Valley area whose family has been there for three generations now, Hidalgo Co., Cameron County, etc.)

"Large quantities of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin enter the United States through South Texas. Most of these drugs are not intended for local distribution and are transported to other areas of the country; however, some spillover distribution does occur in the South Texas HIDTA region. Shipments destined for markets outside the South Texas border area are typically stored at stash locations in distribution centers (San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston) pending transportation arrangements; shipments are also transported directly from the border region to their intended destination, but to a lesser extent.

Traffickers concentrate their smuggling operations through three major smuggling corridors within the region--Del Rio/Eagle Pass, Laredo, and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. These corridors are the main population and economic centers of the South Texas border region and create an environment conducive to drug smuggling and money laundering activities. However, drug traffickers exploit the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas as well as the coastal border in the South Texas HIDTA region. The South Texas border region encompasses several major land POEs that provide pedestrian, vehicular, and rail transportation options for legitimate commerce and drug traffickers. Traffickers exploit the high volume of cross-border traffic as well as the existing transportation infrastructure to smuggle large quantities of illicit drugs into the United States. The South Texas HIDTA border area is also vulnerable to drug smuggling and other criminal activities that take place between POEs. The Rio Grande River is easily breached at a number of low-water crossings by traffickers on foot and in vehicles and by maritime conveyances along deeper stretches of the river. The South Texas Gulf Coast is vulnerable to traffickers who use maritime conveyances.

The transportation infrastructure in the region, including networks of interstates, U.S. highways, and state highways, facilitates the transportation of illicit drug shipments from the border area to interior drug markets. The Del Rio/Eagle Pass corridor is supported by U.S. Highways 57, 83, 90, and 227, which extend from the border to the interior of Texas. Interstate 35 is the primary transportation route leading from the border at Laredo; US 59 provides access to I-37, which connects Corpus Christi to San Antonio. U.S. Highways 77 and 281 are the principal transportation routes that traverse the Lower Rio Grande Valley."

"Much of the violence can be attributed to the battle between the Gulf Cartel and The Alliance for control of lucrative smuggling routes in South Texas. Murders in Nuevo Laredo remained relatively stable from 2005 (182) to 2006 (178); however, the number of murders committed in 2005 was the highest in 10 years. Moreover, law enforcement officials in Laredo report 27 murders in 2005 and 24 in 2006. Although no single cause has been identified in most of these cases, officials believe that most were drug-related. The level of violence may increase as a result of the extradition of Osiel Cardenas-Guillen and renewed efforts by The Alliance to gain control of the lucrative Nuevo Laredo plaza.3 While much of the violence has been concentrated in Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, areas along the entire U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas have experienced drug-related crime and violence associated with this conflict, including areas throughout the Rio Grande Valley, particularly in Starr and Hidalgo Counties, where drug-related extortion, kidnappings, and homicides have been documented.

Drug-related border violence is also directed at law enforcement officers. Assaults against U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents and sheriffs' deputies in the South Texas HIDTA border area have increased. Law enforcement officers in the region have been fired upon while patrolling areas along the Rio Grande River. Encounters with heavily armed drug traffickers are also common. Drug traffickers wearing military-style clothing and carrying military-grade weapons, including assault rifles, pose a serious threat to law enforcement officers along the border. Large caches of firearms, grenades, and improvised explosive devices used by drug traffickers have been seized along the border in the past year. Increased border security measures in South Texas, including the deployment of National Guard troops as part of Operation Jump Start4 and additional USBP resources, will most likely result in more assaults against law enforcement officers along the border."

2. I don't remember the exact statistics but I recall border arrest rates of illegal aliens along our entire southern border started to rise noticeably about 1982. The "out of control border" gave rise to the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration legislation of that era, 1986 final passage and enactment.

So here we are 25 years later...right.

If any SST reader has stats for recent year border arrests along the entire southern border on an annual basis I would be most interested. In the early 1980s, we calculated roughly that for every one arrested say 3-5 made it through. I imagine that may still be a rough way to estimate the flow in. Measuring the flow back and forth is problematic. I recall very vaguely an annualized arrest rate of about 1 million, say 100,000 per month across the entire southern border. But my recollection may be quite faded after all these years.

Prior to the 1980s, we did not have a severe illegal alien problem with respect to Mexico (and Central America.) But economic issues and demographic issues drove the situation in Mexico. Also don't forget the escalating violence/guerilla activity in Central American during the 1980s -- Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua -- which caused some folks to want to flee the violence and economic problems and come north, much of the time illegally.

The Twisted Genius

Open borders and a general amnesty... I find that silly. Securing the border and controlling who enters the country should be a matter of national security. As Sidney Smith poins out, that should be the first step. I recommend that a U.S. Border Guard (USBG) be established along the lines of the USCG. Take a couple of divisions and carrier battle groups out of the DOD and use those resources to establish the USBG and beef up the USCG. Let ICE do their law enforcement functions, especially the workplace enforcement functions. I wouldn't want border guard troops raiding poultry farms and McDonalds looking for illegal aliens. Of course, this is pure fantasy. It will never happen, but I wish it would.

Next, vigorously go after any business using illegal aliens. Let's see heavy fines, perp walks and asset siezures. The business community (and us consumers) will then demand national IDs and a guest worker program. I doubt this will happen either, but I wish it would.

Rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them... don't bother. Many will leave if the employment opportunities dry up. I truly have compassion for those who risk coming here to provide a better life for their families. Working towards an effective guest worker program would be the most compassionate thing to do. However, like those who choose civil disobedience, they have to be willing to take thier chances under current laws.


We had a good Secretary of State here in KS, but he wasn't going to run again and then resigned. I will do all I can to make sure we don't get Kobach. But there is 400 miles to the west of me that might like the guy. I've never understood western Kansas. They don't like Sunday liquor sales and gambling. I'm not sure how they feel about illegals.

frank durkee

It's the market, pure and simple. If there were no market of jobs to be filled by border crossers, they wouldn't come. So if you want to control the flow eliminate those job opennings for ilegales. Then deal with any residual problems. If one starts there then many of the other problems will be mare amenable to solution. It might even cut our US unemployment rate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad