The Department of Homeland Security is still pressing forward bravely, erecting over 0.1% of a fence intended to partially deny waves of illegal aliens from unfettered access to the southern states:


I admit I was exaggerrating a bit with the 0.1% figure. I admit it. I will leave it to you, the interested reader, to research the length of the contiguous border with Mexico. Hint: it's more than 670 miles!

A sovereign nation, building a fence to protect its border. Non-news, you say? Me too! What sane person would object?

Welcome to the modern world!
Which brings us to our Award Nominee, Attorney Jose Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas:

"The Great Wall of China did not stop the Mongols, and the Berlin Wall didn't stop people escaping to freedom — why do they think this will be any different?" asked El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez, the point man in one of the lawsuits.

Ponder the hidden implications of those analogies for a moment or two.

The fence "is a political initiative meant to satisfy conservatives in Congress who have played to fears about all immigrants being terrorists, criminals, and living off the dole," he [said]*.

The overwhelming majority of the half-million people believed to cross the border ilegally each year are peaceful, mostly Mexicans seeking low-wage jobs. About 12 percent of those caught in the El Paso sector in 2007, Hernandez said, have a criminal background or were previously deported from the United States.

Using Hernandez' figures, that's 12 percent of 500,000 people... lessee... mmm... carry the 1...

60,000 people had a criminal background or were previously deported?

Evidently, a 12% failure rate (where success = "just a hard-working poor person with no respect for national sovereignity") is acceptable to the supporters of open borders. To me, that sort of quality control borders on negligence. Borders it from the wrong side.

* I actually did a better job of writing this than the original journalist, who used a loaded word here.