Just to be sure, let's get this straight...

I just want to clarify my position on the state of the U.S./Mexican border. My last few blogs display a degree of irritation toward the attitudes taken by both the U.S. and Mexican governments over the apparent involvement by Mexican soldiers in protecting escaping drug smugglers. I called for, and still call for, government authorization for the Border Patrol to intervene in future incursions by alleged Mexican soldiers with force, if necessary. If the soldiers are not genuine, they are still abetting drug trafficking, and if they are genuine, they are not only abetting drug trafficking, they are violating the sovereignty of the United States. There is simply no excuse.

Illegal border crossings, in general, is another matter, one not so easily addressed. The problem really isn't an immigration problem as much as it is an economic problem. For a touch of insight, I encourage readers to watch the movie "A Day Without A Mexican" (and forgive me for recommending a decidedly cheesy film). While the content is presented with a strong bias, it should make you think.

Both the American economy and the Mexican economy depend on Mexicans crossing the U.S. border to find work. The movie makes a point I haven't seen elsewhere in the media: if it costs x dollars to provide social services to illegal aliens, how much do illegal aliens contribute to our gross domestic product (GDP)... and is it worth the cost of services to lose the related GDP? And don't forget the cost to Homeland Security for chasing down these aliens.

Now, I'm not saying "open the borders," either. What I am saying is that the illegal alien issue is far more complicated than the drug trafficking issue, or more specifically Mexican military involvement in drug trafficking. We don't need new laws to deal with the latter. We only need to enforce the laws that exist a little more aggressively.

We don't need new fences. We simply need to teach the Mexican military to stay on its side of the border.