Examining the Migrant Horde- Pt 3—The Rogues Gallery – by Bill Reader

*Yeah, I know I said I’d be back today. Turns out I have a doctor’s appointment at noon (long story) and then there’s an unavoidable errand in the afternoon, plus I’m still mired in short story mostly because I can’t get to my research books, which is why I’ve been painting/resurfacing the bookshelves…. yeah.  (I’ll post a picture when they’re all up, but it turns out we need to put the flooring in first, because… well, because these are kind of permanent.  Unless we win the lottery and I have a library tower built or something.) So I was researching on ebook — which I hate — all through the weekend, and I’ve been absent at PJM at the worst possible time.
I had no clue what to do today, until Bill sent me this.  He says it really is the end of the series.  Probably.  And I will be back tomorrow, for sure. Unless the doctor tells me I’m dying.  Considering this is an allergist, that’s highly unlikely. – SAH*


Examining the Migrant Horde- Pt 3—The Rogues Gallery by Bill Reader

A note to the readers on terminology: It has been correctly pointed out that I’ve called several countries on the North  and Central American continents part of South America. Fair play to you. I have for years been in the somewhat lazy habit of combining South and Central America and even Mexico into one group because arguably, geopolitically, the interests and politics of South and Central American countries run together with each other much more than with ours. They are, indeed, part of the Southern areas of the Americas. However, that is not the conventional usage. I have tried to be more mindful of this conflation in this piece. [Yeah.  I changed it to Latin America in the text, which serves same purpose.  Also new commenter and fixating on this, I think betrays what Larry C. calls “dismiss, dismiss, dismiss” move.]

Welcome back to our continuing series on the Migrant Horde. In our first article we touched on the inconsistencies in media reporting regarding how fast the “migrant caravan” (or should I say, the first one) was going. We explored that vehicles are essential for them to travel at the speed they have, and discussed what’s transpired since, including the strange situation with the charter buses.

In our second article we met our key players, including the LIBRE party (relatively poorly known in American media), which Bartolo Fuentes was a representative of, and which formulated the seeds of this whole thing. We met Pueblo Sin Fronteras, learned a bit about the structure of the migrant caravan, and explored what’s currently known about how they’re keeping fed, hydrated—and paid—on the road.

Today it’s time for us to meet the people themselves, to the greatest extent that that’s possible. That means, these days, that we first need to tabulate. Up until now we’ve talked, for simplicity, about migrant caravan number one, mostly because it’s the best reported on, it’s the one most likely to hit the border before November 6th (which I suppose is probably tomorrow, if these posts go up as planned), and how it’s handled is going to be the biggest determinant of—well, everything really. Not just how we deal with all of these caravans, but more generally, whether America has the fortitude to stand by its beliefs, rather than following the same dark path that Germany followed out of a surplus of thorough naiveté. Many Americans right now are banking on the fact that Trump is not Angela Merkel. We have a chance, at least.

But as those following the issue closely are aware, there are actually several migrant caravans that we’ve essentially been ignoring for simplicity. Knowing what kind of an extended study I made of the first, I’ll reassure you that I’m not going to belabor the others as thoroughly. But hopefully, by the end of this, we will have discussed each group in enough detail to have some idea of their composition and size, to the extent that they vary or are known. More broadly, who are the migrants? What is their aggregate view on America, and on the countries they are fleeing? What kind of people are they?

Because it is of interest to the topic, I’d like to briefly touch on the argument for why these people are properly defined as “migrants”, and not “refugees”. I’ve explained at some length why this is mostly of interest on the Right, so I’ll keep it brief. But it’s worth discussing up front, because today is all about getting to know the nature of the horde.

The UN-approved definition of a refugee is given in the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees, Article I-A, which states that a refugee is a person who: “…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (The original convention constrains this to results of events prior to 1951, but the 1967 Protocol removed that restriction. We are a party on the 1967 protocol. The other instrument it might help to be aware of is the 1980 refugee act, which incorporated that definition formally into our own law.).

It so happens that this convention, specifically, and the modifying protocol and act noted above, are still the basis of our definition for a refugee. And neither of the latter substantially changes the parameters regarding who we let in, as defined above. Moreover, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, people must be of “special humanitarian concern to the United States”. So, let’s run down the list. Are these people being persecuted for reasons of race? Nope—they’re all, or, well, mostly Latin, anyway. Religion? Not that any of them have said. Quotes suggest they’re mostly Catholic, or at least Christian of some denomination. Nationality? Hardly—especially after we talk about some other attributes of the horde. If they’re having a tiff with their home countries, it’s surely a lover’s tiff. Membership of a particular social group or political opinion? Well, lord knows the Left will try that one on for size if they’ll try anything. The nucleus of the first group is hard left, and the frontman of said group is hard left, so if I had to guess I’d say the group probably leans left. They had their preferred candidate deposed for trying to change the constitution of Honduras— but though Democrats seem to struggle with this concept, unchallenged leftist leadership is not a basic human right. “We didn’t get our way over everyone” is not persecution. And in any case, when we add in the other caravans, even that unifying distinction may become blurry. “Social group” could mean anything, up to and including the fact that a lot of them are poor. But again, they’re not being persecuted for being poor—being poor in Latin America is just tragically common.

Moreover, systematic persecution is not what they’re laying claim to. What they’re laying claim to as the cause for their leaving is relatively unambiguous and repeated with drumbeat uniformity:

-“fleeing a toxic mix of violence, poverty and corruption” (Reuters).

-“fleeing widespread poverty and violence” (Fox).

-“there are only two forces driving them: hunger and death“(AP).

-“fleeing widespread violence, poverty and corruption” (AP)

-“widespread poverty and gang violence in Honduras” (CBS)

-“fleeing violence and murderous gangs” (ABC).

Well, I’m very sorry to tell you, but though that sounds genuinely unpleasant, none of that is anywhere in our qualifying definition for refugee. Nor, even if we set all that aside for the sake of argument, are they of any special humanitarian concern to the United States—or I should say, to the extent there is humanitarian concern in this case, it is less for them, and more because of them.

Some people will try to throw ink in the water by referring to the UN Refugee Agency definition, which includes people who are “outside their country of origin because of feared persecution, conflict, violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order”. One small problem. That definition is one we never agreed to be bound by. While there are international conventions that do contain wording similar to this—Such as The OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, and the Cartagena Declaration handling Latin America, from my research, the US is not a signatory on any of these instruments, nor any that I could find which allow people to claim refugee status solely on the basis of conflict, violence, or a breakdown of public order.

Bottom line, these people are not refugees. And by the way, Newsweek, that means they’re also not asylum seekers. Homeland Security will be happy to explain why: “An asylee is a person who meets the definition of refugee and is already present in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry” (emphasis mine). Well, I should say: you can seek asylum all you want. If you don’t meet the criteria for a refugee, by definition you are not going to be an asylee, either. And while there seems to be no really good, reliable definition of migrant, in practice the way the term is being used—non-refugee traveling outside their own country—is apt. Really, they uniformly sound like economic migrants, given they note they’re fleeing poverty. For that matter, as Breitbart pointed out, and as was noted by CBS in passing, some of them just outright admit they want jobs— preferably in the US. Which might explain why when Mexico offered them ” shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs” in Mexico under the “You are at home” plan, their response, as NBC details it, was to shout “Thank You! No, we’re heading North!”. That’s a verbatim quote, apparently. So make that picky economic migrants. To whom, legally, I can find nothing whatsoever indicating we owe anything.

Now let’s talk about the ethnicities each caravan is composed of, as well as recent size and location. We know that the meat of the group started with Hondurans as previously discussed. Salvadorans have been interviewed as part of that group. The way the group swelled as it passed through Guatemala strongly suggests there are Guatemalans mixed in. There are also likely a fair number of Mexicans who added themselves to the group around about the 20th/21st of October. Recall that 2,000-odd people made it across the bridge, but their overall numbers nevertheless swelled “to about 5,000 overnight”, per CBS.

But frankly, who knows who else. Continuing on our theme that the Spanish language media seems to be picking up a lot of stuff lost on American reporters— a Unavision reporter named Francisco Santa Anna reported that he met people from Bangladesh who had “infiltrated” the crowd and were first noticed while the group was crossing Guatemala. The Daily Caller noted they were later detained at an immigration facility. Just a reminder that Guatemala reported that they’ve caught almost 100 people associated with ISIS in their territory and deported them— so infiltration by this group has been an ongoing problem for them. Oh, and Bengladesh’s official religion is islam, to which over 90% of the population are adherents. DHS lays claim to an even broader group of people, stating that they see individuals from “over 20 countries”, including “Somalia, India, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh”.

Is that an overestimate, or on the other hand, is that even comprehensive? Ah, that’s the trouble, really. The people who added themselves to the caravan, obviously, weren’t being tabulated or vetted as they added themselves, so it’s impossible to know how big a security risk this is or isn’t. It sounds distinctly non-zero, though. People crossing rivers instead of getting processed isn’t helping the case, either. It’s almost like there’s a reason we don’t take immigrants this way. Sizewise, recent reports show that the first caravan has fluctuated up and down. It reached a peak of around 7,000 around the 21st (here reported at The Insider, but easy enough to confirm). Most recently it has an estimated size of around 3-4,000 people per CBS news.

May I also add, from this same article—I missed this as I was catching up on business—that it was also reported that the ever-flip-flopping Mexican government formally acquiesced to providing buses to the horde. I offer a quote from governor Miguel Angel Yunes—”For that reason, we also offered them transportation so that, if possible, tomorrow … they may be able to go to Mexico City or to the place they wish.”. Then he reneged on it, per AP. But only sort of—  per MSNBC he offered to take them to another city in Veracruz because Mexico City’s water supply is undergoing maintenance. It’s not really clear whether they took the offer or not, but I will say that they’ve continued moving in Veracruz. And interestingly the group continues to move at a respectable clip—they hit Isla, Veracruz, on the 3rd, and they were in Juchitan de Zaragoza, Oaxaca, 160 miles away, on the 1st.

The second caravan seems to have likewise started in Honduras and headed to Mexico through Guatemala. The CBS report above, and this AP article, report that there also Salvadorans in that caravan, and estimate its current size as around 1,000-1,500. Most recently they hit Mapastepec, Chiapas, following in the footsteps of the first group as they advance up the coast.

The third caravan, for variety, seems to have originated in El Salvador, so by default the group had to go through Guatemala. It’s most recent size as of Saturday was about 1,000-1,500 people per the AP. Last I can find, they waded the Suchiate River on Friday, after the Mexican authorities “told those traveling in it they would have to show passports and visas and enter in groups of 50 for processing.”.

And now we’re hearing that a group of “central Americans”, about 300 strong, is walking in the state of Veracruz, as reported by MSNBC. Just to clarify, this group actually appears to be further ahead of everyone. That I can tell, nobody knows where they actually started. Mexico itself seems a likely source if it’s a fourth caravan. It could also be the leading vanguard of the first caravan, if they made more distance than everyone else. There’s some circumstantial evidence for that, as Fox news reports: “But other migrants, mainly men and the younger members of the group, kept on walking or hitching rides toward Puebla and Mexico City.” Those also sound like demographics that might jump freight trains, as was discussed by my addendum to the first article.

By the way, if you’re curious as to why I’m not doing as deep a dive on the origins of all the groups—besides not wanting to bore you to death— it’s mostly because of inherent uncertainty in covering these groups. As you can gather from the above, the numbers and modes of travel are mercurial even when reported day over day. And the caravans are not all covered to the same depth.

At present, to the best of my knowledge, the first caravan’s organization is the only one that has been significantly elucidated. The others are anybody’s best guess. The second could conceivably also be the handiwork of LIBRE, since it also started in Honduras. The third I’m totally in the dark on. Bartolo Fuentes ran to El Salvador in his most recent self-imposed exile. Does he also have contacts on the ground there who could have started it? Perhaps. Also, we still don’t know who was handing out money to migrants in the first caravan in Guatemala, but presumably they had some relationship to the organization of the caravan. DHS‘s sources say they were handing money to women to move to the front of the caravan, which they frame as strategic, to form a human shield— but could be an ultimately failed public relations move, and in either case suggests higher-level organization with ready cash (or, I suppose, they could have just been some of your friendly neighborhood gratuitous-money-providers, as one so often encounters these days). Could the people who provided the money have reach into El Salvador? Or did we just reach a tipping point and embolden serial migrant groups, of the kind that bombarded Germany? Unfortunately, I was unable to find definitive answers, so at the present moment I can only speculate. As for the fourth caravan— well, current reporting makes it hard to tell if it’s new, or simply the result in a schism of the first caravan, over two consecutive on-again-off-again offers of buses.

From the above we can tell this much—from available information it doesn’t seem that anybody involved comes anywhere near the definition of refugees—which, of course, we knew. Their goal seems to be to come to the US—and they mean to come to the US specifically— because it’s more stable and less poor than their home countries. Those aren’t among the recognized reasons we would admit people, and this is wise policy, since we’re more stable and less poor than most countries within two continents.

The groups probably do derive most of their members from Latin America. But the first added significant numbers of members in Guatemala, and the second and third are presumed to have picked up people there as well. A touch disturbing, since Guatemala has had significant problems with ISIS insinuating itself into the local population and people from an overwhelmingly Islamic country have been seen in the crowd. FrontPageMag provides a handy reference on prior times terrorists have been caught trying to cross the Southern border, for further context on the subject. How the extra caravans are being organized, we’re not sure, but all the groups are sizeable, with two out of three in the low thousands. It sounds like even this is just the start, which is probably not a surprise given how quickly numerous groups have suddenly appeared, arguing that this may have inspired several spontaneous groups with more spontaneous origins. “Everybody wants to form another caravan,” says Tony David Gálvez, a Honduran farmworker, to the NYT. How reassuring. All of which, I think, makes it overridingly important that we demonstrate resolute firmness with the first horde.

But what kind of people are they? Of course, every news source is reporting individual cases. This group seems even less likely to respond to a poll than Republican voters are right now.  At all events, we know they’re looking for heartbreaking stories for their liberal readership, so that’s most of what we’ll get. How much those stories are being filtered from the crowd at large is hard to say.

What might say more about the group as a whole is things they’ve done together. Things like march under the Honduran Flag, which they are seen doing in the pictures at the Daily Caller here, and separately by NBC news here (slides 13, 24, 29 and 35), and again by Bloomberg here. And by the body text in the LA Times here: “Most of the migrants are citizens of Honduras, and many waved its blue-and-white national flag”. And lately you can find pictures of the Mexican flag being added to the first group, by a local news outlet in NY here. Moreover you can add what the first group did when they got to the Suchiate river: “…hundreds had walked to the river’s edge where they sang the national anthems of Honduras and Guatemala,” (AP).

May I also note parenthetically that the leaders wearing their soccer jerseys put me in mind of the Football war, where Honduras and El Salvador fought over a World Cup qualifier? Wiki notes this rather amusing detail in their report on it: “The roots were issues over land reform in Honduras and immigration and demographic problems in El Salvador.” Apparently Honduras had gotten rather fed up with, get this, illegal immigration from El Salvador, and taken away land Salvadorans were occupying illegally. More seriously, I would mind you that, while we Americans tend to think of soccer as a harmless game of chance (at least look at the link before you grab a pitchfork), representation of your country in soccer is taken seriously enough in our Southern neighbors that a soccer match can trigger a war. When you see people leading the group kitted out in soccer apparel, to me, at least, that re-contextualizes things slightly. The point of all this being that, considering these people are represented to us as universally agreeing their home country is the pits, they’re quite excited about said home country. And referring back to my article, “Not Just Any Huddled Masses”, as a gesture from a group asking the US to admit them, I can imagine almost nothing less ingratiating.

Oh, wait. Yes, I can. I can imagine the groups forcing their way through the border —twice. Once when the first group knocked down the fence as shown by CBS, and once when the second group pushed their way through it, as noted by NBC news. I can imagine them throwing rocks at the police—twice. Once by the first group as noted by BBC here on October 20th, and once by the second group as reported by the Daily Caller on the 29th, with what I would call my very favorite picture from this mess so far. Quoth the Daily Caller, “Navarrate Pida said the migrants attacked officers with rocks, glass bottles and fireworks and that some of the migrants were carrying firearms,”. Or I could imagine the second group throwing Molotov cocktails at the police, per the LA Times. (President Trump has at least responded to this appropriately, saying: “They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. I told them to consider it a rifle.” Well, it is a primitive missile, after all. And those who consider this overkill are not, I think, overly familiar with the dynamics of crowds. If you let them get emboldened by throwing rocks, you’re going to be dealing with an outright riot within a minute or two, and then you either get to kill them all as they advance, or fight in a nasty scrum.).

What kind of people would act this way? Well, what a good question. Fox has an answer for you. “Criminals are everywhere,” one migrant told Fox News. “It’s criminals in here. It is. But it is not that many. It is good people here trying to get through Mexico and then get to the United States. It doesn’t mean that everybody is a criminal.”. Not that anyone said everyone was. We’ll talk about that.

“We aren’t killers,” said Stephany Lopez, a 21-year-old Salvadoran with the first caravan.” per CBS news. She’s right. Well, not successful killers, anyway, as noted by Fox’s interview with a man named Jose who admits to a criminal record including attempted murder (mirrored here at The Daily Caller). Then there are Carlos “N” and Jerson “N” of Honduras, who opened fire on Mexican federal police as reported by, of course, Spanish-language media at gob.mx, and picked up by Breitbart. The original story says this (translated) “the two foreign subjects…when noticing themselves of the presence of the federals (sic), began to shoot them of direct way (sic) in their attempt to flee,”. That kind of sounds like they were known criminals, to me. Funny the MSM missed ’em, eh?

Actually, I take it back. Maybe they do have a killer. A 26 year old man was noted to die of a head wound after being shot with a rubber bullet when the second group met the border police, as noted here by Newsweek. That’s curious, given that “Mexican officers had not been carrying any guns or revolvers that would have fired rubber bullets”. While rubber bullets certainly can kill, especially when aimed at the head, usually the whole point of them is not to. Is this a  stage rehearsal for Maria De La Cruz? I suppose we’ll see.

Meanwhile, note this tweet from Tyler Q. Houlton, DHS Press Secretary: “@DHSgov can confirm that there are individuals within the caravan who are gang members or have significant criminal histories.”. More specifically, as noted in the report released on November 1st from DHS, “over 270 individuals along the caravan route have criminal histories, including known gang membership”. Furthermore, ” Mexican officials have also publicly stated that criminal groups have infiltrated the caravan”. How they determined this is unclear, although there are enough pictures of the caravan that criminologists could, perhaps, have determined it from examining publically available images. In all cases, Mexico doesn’t have the strongest incentive to lie about this, since the worse the composition of the caravan, the more it makes their somewhat limp response look bad.

Wait. Hang on a moment. 270? Taking upper estimates of the four caravans presently known, that’s one group of 4,000, two groups of 1,500, and one of about 300, or 7,300 in all. So, about 3.7% of the caravan members have a known criminal history, by the most conservative estimates. If we take the lower estimates on size, there are about 5,300 people, at which point over 5% — or to put it another way, more than 1 in 20 people in the aggregate group— are criminals. I would call that a, ah, significant consideration.

Not that this demonstrates anything vis a vis the above, but even the people who aren’t criminals are—well— may I introduce to you Maria Irias Rodriguez, who is a walking math problem. “If they stop us now, we’ll just come back a second time,” the 17 year old, traveling with her husband and 2 children, told The Insider. How old are the kids, you say? She has an “8-month-old daughter, [and] 2-year-old son” (NYTimes). Joining the caravan, it seems, was not the first of her poor life decisions. [To be fair, she might not have had any choice in any of it- SAH]

I offer also, for flavor, this lady calling Donald Trump the antichrist on an interview with CNN (mirrored on The Political Insider). Perhaps the job she’s coming over here for is DNC spokesperson. Interestingly, the much publicized flag burning is not on this list. It doesn’t seem to have been done by people in the caravan, though it was a protest in favor of those people as reported on Breitbart, and these muffins were also caught on camera burning tires in front of the US Embassy as noted in The Daily Mail.

What does all this leave us with? Well, given the uniform participation in flag carrying and anthem singing, it seems that “foreign nationalists” would be a fair characterization of the average crowd member. I can’t tell you in precise detail how likely any one person is to commit violence, but I can say from the above they have a pretty alarming number of people with criminal histories in the group, if the published numbers are to be believed. And, of course, actions speak louder than words—we’ve seen at least two caravans get violent with border police, throwing rocks at them, and forcing their way through the border fence. As for the reports of shooting at federal police, and throwing Molotov cocktails— well, your mileage may vary, but I consider the first instance of that kind of behavior a generous excess. And in the context of  Islamic terrorism being a constant problem and threat, Univision has independently reported Bangladeshis in the crowd. DHS, meanwhile, says that’s only the beginning.

In the end, not only are we not obligated to take these people, we have ample reason to be every bit as brisk as President Trump has been. It’s my hope that he continues to stand firm.  They’re transparently disinterested in becoming Americans. They see America as a kind of prize to be taken, and never mind the opposition. They are already massing in disturbing numbers. If there was ever a time for America to demonstrate her exceptionalism, and handle this better than Europe handled the same challenge, now is that time. They say they’re fleeing violence and lawlessness. But they’re casually disregarding our laws, if not simply expressing contempt for them. And they’re getting violent with people who oppose them. They are demonstrating, in fact, that they are not just beholden to their home countries, but to the very behaviors that have made them intolerable.

These are not people casting off their old lands. On the contrary, they are taking their screwed-up homes on tour, and showing the world just how bad they are firsthand. But I will say that increasingly, nobody can look at their home countries and suppose the way things are is an accident. For people trying to flee lawlessness and violence, it’s curious how insistent they seem on bringing them along for the journey.

103 thoughts on “Examining the Migrant Horde- Pt 3—The Rogues Gallery – by Bill Reader

  1. > How they determined this is unclear,

    Video of the invaders, processed with Facebook and Amazon facial recognition APIs. Either homegrown or using an online security service.

    The same tools available to anyone, worldwide…

    There’s no crowd you can’t be picked out of and identified, unless no photo has ever been taken of you.

  2. > more than 1 in 20 people in the aggregate group— are criminals. I would call that a, ah, significant consideration.

    Known at the national level, not just local, and whose origin countries have shared that information with foreign police or security services.

    They’re just the top of the iceberg.

  3. Throwing Molotov Cocktails is, in my book, using a weapon of war even if they have no guns, and cause to treat them as invading military.

    But for the die-hard SJW, these people are engaging in Cultural Appropriation from the historically repressed Finno-Urgic people, and they need to go home and contemplate their crime. Who repressed them? Those paragons of European behavior, the Swedes, and everyone’s arch-enemy, the Russians. Isn’t that just terrible?

    ‘Nother aside: I have a few die-hard Team Blue friends who have been uncritically sharing memes of incorrect history, and since they’re retired profs, I’ve been having fun. The latest was particularly bad in that a stronger emotional pull would have come from correct facts. “The last time the US Army was deployed on American soil was the Civil War.” Nope. Indian Wars continued into the 1920s. (My friends are exceptional in that they accept and appreciate correction on these things, ymmv.)

    1. It is a legitimate function of the Federal government to defend the borders. It’s unclear how they expect the government to do that EXCEPT from inside the territory.
      Bah. Shabies.

      1. We could do it outside of the borders if we are willing to declare war on Mexico, and depopulate a zone of no sovereignty, into which we could expel deportees, and then kill them. XD

        1. We don’t have to actually declare war on Mexico, just ignore them. There is legal precedence here, the Pancho Villa Expedition.

          1. If Mexico is either unable or unwilling to stop the aggression against the United States that comes through Mexican territory, they are no longer a sovereign state.

          2. As I mentioned here within the past few days, following the Villista’s attack on Columbus, the US asked fro and received formal permission from the president of the recognized Mexican government for the US to pursue Pancho Villa and his band of brutal malcontents.

      2. What is thousands or tens of thousands of men forcing their way into a country if not an invasion requiring military response. Even if you had actual refugee status the most likely result would be tent housing and detainment for a while and your least bad resource would be military.

        Only similar instance I can think of was Mariel boat lift.

      1. Following the Villista attack on Columbus, New Mexico, the US obtained permission from the (nominal) government of Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa and his band of not-so-merry men through Mexico. The locals weren’t very happy about it from the start, and within a few months the US Army forces were in state of de facto war with elements of the Mexican Army, many of whose officers and men resented the American presence.

      1. Yes, with two of the islands in the chain, Attu and Kiska, occupied (if not continuously for the former) by Japanese forces from June 1942 to the fall of 1943.

        1. The Japanese launched operation AL against the Aleutians with the dual purposes of denying the US bases in the northern Pacific, and as an attempted diversion for their operation MI, the planned conquest of Midway Island. Operation Cottage was the Allied landing on Kiska to retake it from the Japanese, only to eventually discover the Japanese had secretly evacuated two weeks earlier. Alas, not before the US and Canadian forces landed on opposite sides of the island took 313 casualties (92 fatal) from Japanese booby traps and friendly fire incidents.

          1. Also, iirc, the US ended up recovering its first intact Japanese Zero due to this campaign. A Japanese pilot was forced to make an emergency landing, but ended up flipping his plane as he touched down. He apparently died instantly due to head injuries, and his plane was recovered intact by the US when it was eventually discovered.

            1. IIRC, at this point the USAAF discovered that the amazing performance of the Zero was due to the fact that “We don’t need any stinking armor. We’re samuri!” This led to a change in tactics and a noticeable improvement in win/loss statistics against it.

              FWIW, the lack of armor (and self-sealing fuel tanks) was also present in the “Betty” bomber. This ended up with the American nickname of “Ronson”, after the cigarette lighter.

              1. My ROTC instructor was a pilot in the Pacific theater in WWII. He said the P-38s were assigned to “star” pilots and then the newbies drew straws for the next available aircraft, by aircraft type.

                According to him the P-40s were the most desirable and drawn for first. They were heavy, slow, and technically obsolete by that phase of the war. But though their kill ratio wasn’t great, pilots had a much better chance of returning to base in a P-40 than they did in a P-39 or P-51. With an entire hemisphere of mostly water, that counted for a lot.

                I don’t know what the modern Official Figures are, but Colonel Callahan was there, and that’s what the pilots believed then.

                1. I read up on the history of the P-38 in the ’90s. Absolutely the wrong plane for the European theater (at least one factor; either no or inadequate cabin heat), but in the right hands, great in the tropical Pacific.

                  I was remembering the 1997 crash that killed Jeff Ethell in a P-38. The summary seems to be: “it’s easy to screw up if you don’t have a lot of hours in the type”. With a single-seat configuration, it must have been rough for newbies.

                  1. What I read was, the Army basically railroaded the P-38 into production over Lockheed’s protests, before they had finished the test program. The P-38J (I think it was) was the first version Lockheed considered really combat-ready–the earlier variants were mass-produced prototypes with the bugs being fixed as fast as they found them.

                    And it was designed as a city-defense interceptor. The original specification had called for a plane that could take off on short notice, climb like a maniac, fly through a bomber formation shooting up everything in sight, and then land. Thus it had lots of horsepower and horrendous firepower, but (for example) no heater–you wouldn’t be up there long enough to need it. And because the contract was for a small, specialized force, they didn’t optimize it for mass production.

                    So of course the Army said, “This is great! Make us a few thousand of them! We’ll use them for long-range bomber escorts!”


                    Oh. And we want them NOW.”

                    In the Pacific, most of their problems didn’t amount to much, compared to having a plane with two engines over endless water.

                    1. The histories of the P-38 lamented that there was never an effort to replace the Allison engines. The P-51 was dramatically better with the Merlin. No idea what the P38 would have been like. (As I recall, there was a fair amount of politicking about engine selection.) OTOH, it was good enough with the Allisons, eventually.

                    2. Yeah, the Allison problem was also mentioned. Though by far the worst thing was its tendency to go into an unrecoverable dive if you pointed the nose down and let it get much past 400.

                      Turned out the 38 was the first plane to really experience transonic airflow. At a certain speed the airflow over the tail would change, and it would shove the elevator full down with more force than any human being could counter. The only survivors held together long enough for the dive to turn into an high-g outside loop. When it slowed down again the controls would work once more. At which point the (extremely) lucky pilot would land, and they would scrap the horribly overstressed airframe.

                      They eventually developed a dive flap that altered the transonic airflow so the elevator didn’t do that. But by that time nobody in the European theater was willing to take their word for it.

                      And by then the P-51 was on the line.

                      And the Pacific theater had been screaming for more P-38s the whole time anyway (they didn’t really need, for instance, heaters; and the Japanese didn’t have anything it had to power-dive to catch). So the Atlantic brass said “You want ’em? Take ’em.”

      1. And yet, we all know how it’ll be reported. Something like this excerpt from the Prentice Hall Brief Review for Global History and Geography entry on Intifada: “… unarmed teenagers throwing rocks and bombs.”

  4. Invasion force is what I would call several thousand military aged males (with a scattering of females and children) that march while carrying their national flags and singing their national anthems.

      1. Not exactly, Crawford. If you are thinking about the period from the AD 350s CE ish to around 800 ish, it really was a migration of whole peoples, with some advance raiders. The Franks, Burgundians, various Slavic groups, Saxons, and even the Avars settled. The Magyars tended to raid as well as settle, until the Holy Roman Emperors and Saxons settled them pretty firmly. The monastic accounts focused on the raids, not as much on the settlers.

        1. If we don’t stop it now, that’s what it will become. Entire villages (tribes, TBH) picking up and moving to the Land of Milk and Honey where you’re welcome so long as you vote straight Democrat.

          1. Yep. These caravans are the test cases and tip of spear. Punch thru and you have precedent for future “refugees”. Get shot or even just rounded up and you get plenty of sympathy from media and squishes that translates into greater chance of being let in because sympathetic.

        2. And then there were the Huns, who – being from a nomadic culture – didn’t exactly settle.

  5. If the question of the Antichrist is politically relevant, couldn’t that statement Frank made after being asked about his degree of complicity in covering up pederasty be understood as papal endorsement of Lutheran teachings on the Antichrist and the papacy? 😛

    1. Illegal entry is just a misdemeanor level offence as far as I can tell (IANAL). So yea, criminals… Sort of.

      The things they have to do to successfully live here illegally is where the real felonies are, but people tend to ignore those.

  6. There is a word for people who march toward, and into, another country, under their nation’s flag, without the consent of the country they seek to enter: enemy soldiers of an invasion force.

    The historical, and fully precedented, response is to kill them until they are all dead, or they flee back to their nation.

    I suggest our government contact each of those caravans, inform them of that, and then if they fail to heed, do exactly that. If they attempt to cross our border outside of the permitted areas, or without our processing and approval, then gun every one of them down, men, women, and children, until they either flee back to their homelands, or they are all dead.

    Harsh, yes. Life is full of harsh choices, especially at the national and international levels. The alternative is to choose to be victims of our own misplaced compassion.

      1. You know, it occurs to me the 13th Amendment did NOT outlaw slavery; only defined the legal condition of slavery to be for being convicted of certain crimes, crimes never defined by Congress. Seems to me that illegal immigration would be the perfect crime to assess the punishment of slavery for it. Put them to work building The Wall.

    1. There is a word for people who march toward, and into, another country, under their nation’s flag, without the consent of the country they seek to enter: enemy soldiers of an invasion force.

      And despite the assistance offered, it does seem they’ve already done exactly that to Mexico. But I suppose Mexico’s president might regard them as a useful test case.

  7. Ah – so they are coming with the intent of turning the US into another lawless, oligarchy-ruled, poverty-stricken hellhole that they came from.
    So noted.

  8. “Also new commenter and fixating on this, I think betrays what Larry C. calls “dismiss, dismiss, dismiss” move.” Not a new commenter, but I do mostly lurk and have for years. Your false and faintly hostile accusation is unnecessary and rather offensive to me, and I’m assuming a rationalization on your part to cover any embarrassment due to your error, and I get that. But I don’t know you and you don’t know me. I was actually enjoying your multipart commentary, nodding my head in agreement, until now. Everyone has things that bug them, me included, but I mostly always let them go. “Latin America” is AOK with me for the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in the Americas. But I’ve lived in South America off and on for most of my life and it bugs me when people presume that South Americans eat frijoles and tortillas (they don’t, though they may occasionally eat porotos, and when they eat a tortilla it is similar to a frittata, not something to wrap your frijoles up in) and who think that the history and culture south of the border is uniform and differs only slightly in minor details. They are two separate and distinct continents for crying out loud. I don’t think anyone would mistakenly speak for example of native people from Spain or Italy migrating into UK as “Africans”. It was just an unoverlookable glaring error, a slap one’s forehead, wait a sec thing to me, and I had to comment. I’m sorry it offended you having me point it out. No offense was intended.

    1. Hmmm…. I always thought of a frittata as an egg thing more akin to a crust-less quiche. I don’t get comparing it to a tortilla. (not picking… I’m just a foodie)

      well, ok. I admit it. I’m really just a fat guy who likes to eat. Happy? 🙂

      1. In Spain, a tortilla is a little torta, and is a flat egg casserole. At least two generations of exchange students from the US have had culture shock discovering that you cannot make burritos, tacos, or enchiladas with Spanish tortillas. At least, not neatly. They tear and the filling falls out. (We German exchange students giggled at the complaints, but had our own food-based confusions.)

        1. And here I thought tortillas were raised by the Inca for their fur; and their royalty would walk around in tortilla-skin coats on cold days.

          1. Hmm, the only things around here wearing tortilla-skin coats are my lunchtime hot dogs. I’ve been lucky; haven’t run into a furry tortilla in a few years. Oh yeah, 🙂

        2. I did a bit of consulting for a Bavarian company around 2001. At that time, ISA and EISA busses were popular in computers, and we had to deal with both. Unfortunately, the German (at least Bavarian) pronunciations of “ISA” and “EISA” is precisely the opposite of the American version.

          The tiny bit of grocery shopping I did was point and buy assisted by high school German, aged 30+ years… I did recall what “Hirsch” stood for. Delicious at the restaurant.

        3. See, if I keep hanging out with you smart people, maybe I won’t be so dumb all the time. 😊

          In all seriousness, I had no idea. I thought a tortilla was pretty much the same thing every where.

        4. The “Spanish” teacher in my highschool told all her students she was teaching them Mexican Spanish like our English teachers were teaching us American English. They are the same but different. She also told them they would be teased on the class trip to Spain for there accents being so Mexican.

          1. Back before our house fire in ’99, I had an English/American American/English translating dictionary, and the writers did not mean it as a joke; Americans in the U.K. and vice versa can get into a lot of trouble thinking that they understand what the natives are saying and vice versa. For instance, a British gentleman telling an American lady he would come knock her up at 7 would be surprised at the intensity of her response to his stated intention of coming to knock on the door of her dwelling at 7. In the U.S. “knock her up” has a somewhat different meaning.

        5. I thought I was having my refried beans wrapped in fried little legal documents.

      2. Spanish ‘tortilla’ means ‘little cake.’ The Spanish identified the corn tortilla dishes as being like the bread version from back home, which came in bread and omelette versions. Helped that the Nahuatl word sounded kinda like tortilla. The bread version isn’t poplar over there anymore. Further south South America has a potato bake thing…which Mexicans cook, too, it’s something like potato little-bake or little-cake.

        I’m classing this in the same category as the folks who freak out about Americans meaning “Citizen of the United States of America” rather than “someone on one of two continents that have American in their name.”

      3. I thought a tortilla (aka “Spanish omelette”) and a frittata (Italian egg-based dish) were similar things. Both distinct from the classic (French-style) omelette, which is much thinner and tends to be folded around the filling rather than having it cooked in with the eggs.

        (Coming late to the comment thread, I can’t even untangle how the conversation got from migrant hordes to eggs, but stranger things have happened…)

    2. I will admit that I haven’t been following closely, but who mistook food types or thought that the whole of Central and South America have a single culture? At what point does that make sense at all? Most people are aware that just the country of Mexico has regional cuisine.

      1. I did! I did! I did!

        Insert absurdity here based on the notion that the Mexica were obligate cannibals.

      2. No one talked about cuisine. Noma thinks culture is cuisine, or something.
        Bill — and I — often use South America for Latin America (in talking even.) Sometimes we catch each other and correct it. This time we didn’t NS thinks this means the entire article is invalid.
        BAH. CULTURE IS NOT CUISINE. Only Americans think that shit. Culture are the deep impulses of the culture that shape humans. And yea, all of Latin America, and for that matter Spain and Portugal are closer than some US states, in that respect.

    3. I once got a 15 minute lecture from a resident of Juan Mendoza, a tiny town up in the Sierra Madres, about Mexico being part of North America, not Central or South America, not Latin America. This was over 20 years ago, and I knew enough to stay quiet, make the right noises, and not ask questions. (I was being vented at.) It was interesting.

    4. Your false and faintly hostile accusation is unnecessary and rather offensive to me, and I’m assuming a rationalization on your part to cover any embarrassment due to your error, and I get that.

      If you’re trying to support the suspicion, you’re doing a great job.

      It *is* odd that you’d have only that to say, and it gets even odder if you’re a long-time lurker.

      1. No, that is how we all routinely behave over one of the occasional* bits of confusion about someone who posts rarely.


        *Okay, seriously, I can think of one actual event of confusion that I’m sure happened. Maybe I noticed as many as two others over a period of, say, five years. Of course, my memory isn’t what it used to be, and I don’t pay that close attention to what happens here.

        1. I know at least one of the cat avatar folks (…like i’m going to manage to remember names? but KITTY!) triggered a similar reaction, but that was during a troll invasion.

          I know we had one “is that Yama?” where he tried the verbal judo and pretty soon just exploded. Maybe more, but one I’m sure of.

          At least one “I’ve been a long time reader, but no more!” flounce-off.

          Dang it, BobtRF, why don’t we pay better attention to EXACTLY how many of each thing happen?

          1. Wherever there is at least one of us remembering quantities of each rare event, there are 2*(n-1)! arguments about categories, where n is the number remembering correctly.

          2. I had WordPress puke over my handle and gave me the name of a particularly vile troll. Took a little bit of work to keep The Beautiful But Evil Space Princess from wielding the banhammer, until she reviewed the IP addresses. Whew!

    5. Ah, so for you culture is food and possibly painted clogs. While those can be side lights on the culture, they are NOT THE CULTURE.
      Let’s put it this way: I never tasted a taco till I came to the US. However, friends from Mexico had very similar cultural experiences growing up, experiences that American-born people don’t get.
      And while Portugal is nowhere near South America, or Mexico, and even Brazilian food is COMPLETELY different (trust me) yet, this book could have been written about the leftists I grew up with: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Perfect-Latin-American-Idiot-ebook/dp/B009D1SL7Q/
      The mixture of Latin Machismo and finding justifications for being an economic and legal mess is the same. And those are much deeper parts of the culture than food or what people wear.
      At any rate, you could have said “nit, it should be Latin, not South America” and not act like this one mistake “you should have looked in the right continent” invalidated the whole article. That’s … an interesting choice on your part.
      It is also, frankly, a complete idiocy. I didn’t notice Bill’s mistake, because all those people are South of us in America. Whatever the geographers say, America IS a continent. You can drive from Canada to Brazil, not easily, but you can. In the same way, Eurasia is one continent.
      However Eurasia doesn’t have ONE culture, while Latin America by and large does, with Brazil being slightly different.
      Bah. Culture, sir, is not pretty clothes and interesting recipes. That’s an American leftist view of the world.

  9. Bill Reader, this is the best of the three. It is going to take me forever to follow up on all the stupendous links you’ve provided. Thank you.

  10. Some suggested ROE for the Army and border patrol. Not exhaustive.
    1. All logistical and support personnel be required to wear sidearms and spare magazines for self defense.
    2. Snipers and sharpshooters be stationed a few hundred yards back from mobbed sections of the border and roughly 1/4 mile apart.
    3. Spotters with digital video cameras on their scopes be stationed with the snipers & sharpshooters. They will record the actions of anyone the riflemen contemplate shooting.
    4. Anyone in the migrant crowd aiming a rifle or handgun will be shot.
    5. Anyone preparing to throw rocks or a Molotov cocktail while border patrol, support troops, or civilian structures are in range will be shot.
    6. Anyone attempting to tear down border fencing will be shot.
    7. Anyone who assaults a U.S. official or troops may be shot if they can’t be otherwise restrained.
    8. Carrying firearms near the border or throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails at empty spaces will be responded to by CS or CN gas.
    9. Anyone crossing the border other than at a port of entry will be arrested, taken to any convenient unmobbed spot a few miles away, and put back across the border.
    10. Support troops can be used as spotters by border patrol in case of mass non-destructive crossing attempts.

  11. I always wonder– do these “it was only a rock, you didn’t need to shoot them” folks think that ‘stoned to death’ is about drugs?

  12. may I introduce to you Maria Irias Rodriguez, who is a walking math problem. “If they stop us now, we’ll just come back a second time,” the 17 year old, traveling with her husband and 2 children, told The Insider. How old are the kids, you say? She has an “8-month-old daughter, [and] 2-year-old son” (NYTimes). Joining the caravan, it seems, was not the first of her poor life decisions. [To be fair, she might not have had any choice in any of it- SAH]

    She may also only be 17 for the purpose of crossing the border. That makes her a minor, after all– some folks stay 17 the way my grandmother stayed 29. (When her daughters informed her that she wasn’t allowed to be a decade younger than they are, she switched to “none of your business.” Including for police….)

    1. I’m pretty sure that “legal” is pretty darned young in some of the places south of the border, too.

Comments are closed.