Yes, he enrages, but this much? Credit - Wikipedia, public domain

Someone really needs to tell President Trump the truth here, the borders of a nation are to keep people out, not to keep them in. No, really, this is the way that it works. Mexico’s borders are not something to be policed by Mexico to keep Mexicans inside them. Instead, Mexico’s borders are to be policed by Mexico to keep the gringos out of Mexico. Once we’ve grapsed that we can see that he’s just entirely wrong in what he’s saying here:

Trump also assailed Mexican authorities for being too lax in securing the border and threatened to “stop” the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico does not “stop the big drug and people flows.”

It’s simply not up to the Mexican Government to control who leaves the country. We’ve even a word for places which people aren’t allowed to leave – prison.

Of course, there have been walls meant to keep people in. Here’s a picture of one:

A wall to keep people in

And boy, didn’t we complain about the Berlin Wall? The one that prevented people who wanted to leave from leaving.

President Trump kicked off his Easter Sunday by announcing that he would no longer support a deal on fixing the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if Mexico doesn’t step up border security.

It’s just not Mexico’s job to control what comes into the US. So the President is indeed wrong here:

Borders simply work the other way around. We get very hot and cross under the collar – the entire international system is based upon our not doing this – when countries say that people may not leave. We’re just fine with countries stating that people cannot come in. It’s thus up to the United States to secure the borders of the United States to whatever standards they think right and proper. It’s absolutely nothing at all to do with the Mexican Government. Trump’s shouting at the wrong people, it’s his own subordinates who should be doing the work here.

But, you know, always easier to blame foreigners, isn’t it?

Support Continental Telegraph Donate


  1. It is not indeed a duty of Mexico to hermetically seal itself to keep the grifters on the inside. However, Mexico currently does quite the opposite. It profits enormously from citizens working in the U.S., and sending remittances back to Mexico, and it provides support to make this possible.

    Regarding NAFTA, trade deficits are an irrelevant artifact, and Larry Kudlow is the perfect person to explain this to the President when he starts his job as chief economic advisor tomorrow. However, Mexico promised to maintain symmetry in foreign commerce, then jacked up its VAT to three times the typical U.S. state sales tax. This is the only problem that needs to be solved.

  2. Well, not quite. As I said on here recently, many people crossing from Mexico into the US are not from Mexico but from other South and Central American basket-cases. Mexico should not be letting these people into Mexico for the purposes of illegally entering the US any more than all the countries between the Middle East and Britain should be letting migrants wander around willy-nilly on their way to a taxpayer-funded lifestyle in London.

    Note that ferry companies and airlines are charged with making sure passengers have the correct entry documents for the destination country, and if they get it wrong they are hit with fines. Why should countries not be similarly obliged, if they’re being used solely as a means to get somewhere?

  3. Like the theory. Yes. But this is reality.
    Mexico benefits from its relationship with the US. The US would like that border with the US guarded to control movement across it. So, by exercising power over that beneficial relationship, a canny President can get Mexico to guard that border with low cost Mexican border guards rather than American ones on American pay rates. Trade yes? Importing that which forriners can do cheaper.

    Of course, whether it’ll work in practice given Mexico’s ubiquitous corruption but…

  4. Another “Ridiculous Demand” is that Mexico pay for the border wall. (Well, Congress won’t.) Ridiculous may be simply what Bloke in Spain calls “canny,” about which the only basis for judgement is whether it works. Slap a tax on remittances back to Mom and Dad and Trump can say Mexico paid for the wall.

    “Importing that which forriners can do cheaper”? Make that, “Importing that which citizens want to buy from forriners,” whether because they do it cheaper or for any other reason.

    Whether or not they pay for the wall, I doubt the U.S. wants Mexico to police it, even for Bloke’s “low cost Mexican border guards.” Refer to the mention of corruption one paragraph later.

    Tim Newman, a country is not a Common Carrier. It is in Mexico’s interest whether a Guatemalan claims to be going to the U.S. rather than remaining in Mexico, and Mexico could insist on a valid U.S. visa as proof of that assertion. Beyond that, it ought not be any business of a border guard what you do after leaving his country.

  5. It is in Mexico’s interest whether a Guatemalan claims to be going to the U.S. rather than remaining in Mexico, and Mexico could insist on a valid U.S. visa as proof of that assertion.

    Indeed, that’s my argument.

    Beyond that, it ought not be any business of a border guard what you do after leaving his country.

    I fully agree.

  6. Publicized on Fox News on Easter Sunday. Reached the ear of the President, who responded by Twitter, no surprise. Met with surprising success, no surprise. Mexico to disband this band of foreign gypsies (funded by Americans whose partial goal is to embarrass Trump). “Border relations with the U.S. are good.”

    Trump’s instinct is pro-American (pro-electors). His expertise is making loud noises.

    Given the Continuing Resolution (passed by Democrats in lieu of the Tea Party Republicans) failed to fund the wall or to even allow it to resemble Trump’s prototypes, and given we still have Nixon-era prohibitions on the President even refusing to spend authorized money, organized invasion of the southern U.S. border would enable Trump as Commander-in-Chief to mobilize the Army to secure the border.

    • Apparently, he has now done. President Hillary would not have made a different decision; she would be on the opposite side, against U.S. border security and in favor of the Guatemala/Honduras invasion, and in favor of the caseworkers who would rush forward to put them on the suck with EBT cards and driver’s licenses (which in 10 states entails automatic instant voter registration).