Latest Sylvia Longmire News | Fox News

Cross-Border Bullet Trains: Facilitating Trade or Trafficking?

Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:23:55 -0500

High-speed trains traversing long distances in mere hours or seamlessly crossing international borders without even a pause are nothing new. The first “bullet” train entered service in Japan in 1964, and the Eurail system in Europe has made rapid travel between twenty-seven countries easier than ever. But crossing national borders by train in Europe doesn’t raise nearly as many security concerns as the concept of a similar high-speed train traveling between the United States and Mexico.

Last week, U.S. and Mexican officials began discussing plans for developing the first high-speed train to connect two countries in North America. This planned rail line would connect the U.S. city of San Antonio in Texas and the Mexican city of Monterrey in Nuevo León state. The roughly 300-mile route takes about five hours by car, but northbound drivers might have to tack on a considerable amount of time to go through the mandatory border inspection. Although the planning is in the initial stages and the details are murky, the idea is to have passengers go through security and immigration checks at the point of departure to allow the train to cross the U.S.-Mexico border without stopping.

The primary advantage of such a system would be the facilitation of trade between two of the most vibrant cities relatively near the border. Moving people, and ostensibly some cleared goods, between the two regions could be a real boon to the respective local economies. Family visits and tourism could also significantly increase in and near the two cities, especially given the large Mexican-American community in Texas and the busy industrial and education mecca that is Monterrey.

It should come as no surprise that Mexico is pushing for this rail connection more than the U.S. contingent. Mexico hasn’t had cross-country passenger rail service since 1997, when Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México suspended it and limited trains to just a few tourist routes. President Enrique Peña Nieto has proposed several intercity routes in his plan to revive passenger service, so any concrete steps taken towards making this cross-border route a reality would no doubt be a huge benefit for the Mexican government.

But how much is Peña Nieto willing to concede in order to allay any security concerns of the U.S. government?

Cross-border freight service has been in operation between the U.S. and Mexico for quite some time. However, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the surge in cartel-related violence in Mexico has led the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to dramatically increase scrutiny of trains coming into the U.S. through the handful of southwest border rail crossings. Large X-ray and gamma ray scanning machines now pore over every rail car as they cross the border, looking for telltale signs of contraband and hidden compartments.

Mexican drug traffickers are making full use of those rail cars. For example, between 2009-2011, over 20 tons of marijuana were discovered inside rail cars owned by Union Pacific despite the screening, which resulted in $388 million in fines levied against the corporation. Union Pacific disputed the judgment, saying that even though they have their own police force and inspectors, those officers cannot be armed in Mexico and cannot inspect the trains as thoroughly as they would like at their point of departure.

And these are just the problems involving stashing drugs on freight trains. Even more complications arise when you involve a pre-cleared high-speed train that contains hundreds of people, each one potentially working as a drug courier or mule — let alone an operational terrorist. How intrusive would Peña Nieto allow security checks to be, considering he would likely want to encourage extensive use of this new cross-border transit route? And how involved would he allow U.S. law enforcement or rail security to become?

Given the glacial rate with which initiatives like these tend to move forward in Latin America, project planners will likely have years to work out the details. But for a Mexican president who has slowly been pushing the U.S. away with regards to security cooperation, he may have to think twice about taking this tack if he wants to overcome U.S. security concerns over a potential high-speed drug pipeline into Texas.

Border Violence Spillover to the U.S. Needs to Be Acknowledged

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:41:38 -0400

One early morning in mid-January of 2013, Jesús Juárez opened the front door of his Brownsville, Texas home and saw a package. It had the typical FedEx markings on it, and despite the fact that his daughter’s boyfriend didn’t see it on his way out the night before, Jesús brought the package inside and opened it. Fortunately, only one of the four pipe bombs inside the package detonated, but just that single device blew out the front door and windows and severely burned him, his wife and their young daughter.

An investigation by the Brownsville Police Department began immediately, and was soon joined by the FBI. Local authorities told the media that the perpetrators knew what they were doing because the pipe bombs required a certain level of technical sophistication to create. However, they could only speculate on who might be interested in deliberately sending such a violent message to a quiet home in a nice south Texas neighborhood.

This incident in Brownsville never made it into the national news, but local reporters in the busy drug smuggling corridors of the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) of south Texas continued to follow developments. Mexican cartels and their minions have a large presence in this area, and the bombing reeked of a retaliation hit of some kind. However, cartel members (or gang members they hire) in the U.S. tend to shoot their targets; no cartel-related bombing of any kind had ever occurred on U.S. soil, and some private intelligence firms and drug war observers were quick to dismiss the Brownsville case as a prank gone wrong or something involving local criminals.

Then in late April 2013, federal authorities unsealed the case and named Jesús Juárez in a multi-count indictment for marijuana trafficking, along with several other individuals who had been arrested by the DEA. Jesús and company were accused of smuggling at least 1,000 pounds of marijuana through the RGV between September and December 2012, and the DEA is looking to recoup half a million dollars in drug profits from the group. Jesús received the pipe bomb just a few weeks after his reported smuggling stint.

There are still no suspects in custody, which poses several problems — first and foremost the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and local law enforcement authorities can deny this was a bona fide case of border violence spillover.

While cartel-on-cartel violence is the hallmark of drug-related violence in Mexico —along with violence directed at the Mexican police and army— DHS doesn’t take this type of violence into account when trying to assess the existence of such spillover. DHS officials have even stated in Congressional testimony that the agency doesn’t keep track of crime statistics involving cartel-on-cartel attacks in the U.S.

Some U.S. law enforcement agencies are finally starting to acknowledge that these incidents are happening in their territory. In late October 2012, a Hidalgo County (also in south Texas) Sheriff’s deputy was shot three times by a gang member on the Gulf cartel payroll. Sheriff Lupe Treviño has traditionally been very hesitant to say spillover is a problem, but he had no qualms about telling the media after the shooting that this was the first authentic case of border violence spillover in his county.

These two examples beg the question: how bad do things need to get along our southwest border before DHS —or any other agency, for that matter— will acknowledge that spillover violence is happening?

The general message being sent is that no one seems to care as long as it’s just criminals getting killed or kidnapped in south Texas or Arizona. But in these cases, an innocent five year-old was burned to within inches of her life, and an American police officer —one of many involved in recent confrontations with cartel members and their associates— could have died. There’s no proof the bomb was sent by a drug trafficking organization, but all the existing evidence is definitely pointing in that direction.

There is no standardized definition of spillover violence, and this is part of the problem. Heads can literally roll in the streets of El Paso or Nogales, and DHS or the local sheriff’s department can just say it’s business as usual for drug traffickers and chalk it up as a typical homicide.

Sadly, this mentality prevents the development of any sort of strategy to prevent more incidents like the Brownsville bombing from happening again. No U.S. agency should be waiting for Ciudad Juárez-style shootouts to happen in Tucson or narcoblockades to be set up in Laredo before stepping up and finally acknowledging the fundamental nature of cartel violence in Mexico has effective spilled over into the United States.

Immigration Reform Shouldn’t Include Taxpayer-Funded Health Care

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:19:50 -0400

Living as an undocumented immigrant in the United States can be very difficult. Struggling as a sick, injured, or chronically ill immigrant can mean days, weeks, or even months of discomfort, with a visit to the emergency room usually the most affordable remedy.

By act of living here illegally, these immigrants have very limited options for health care. All human beings deserve at least a basic level of medical care —to prevent loss of life, deliver a baby, etc.— but does that mean that taxpayers should foot the bill for more extensive care for anyone who manages to cross our borders and establish illegal residence in the US without detection?

In March 2013, the California Endowment, a private foundation that advocates for affordable healthcare, launched a TV ad in which several undocumented immigrants explain to the viewer:

“I’m undocumented…We work hard and we’re strong, but everyone gets sick sometimes. Yet many of us don’t have health care. We cannot get health insurance. Now our country has spoken, saying that everyone should have affordable health care. Does that mean ‘everyone’ everyone? I dream that ‘everyone’ includes all of us.”

It’s unfortunate that part of that ad is untrue. While undocumented immigrants have traditionally had few choices for obtaining health care in the U.S., they can get it legally by purchasing private health insurance, paying out-of-pocket to visit an urgent care or community clinic for routine care or non-life threatening illnesses, or visiting an emergency room.

Urgent care and community clinics have been a primary health care option for undocumented immigrants and many uninsured U.S. citizens for quite some time. While visits aren’t exactly cheap, they’re preferred for low-income families who are generally healthy and can set some money aside for illnesses that require prescription medications, casts for minor bone fractures, etc.

Controversy already exists over the use of emergency rooms for medical care by undocumented immigrants because they know they’ll receive care regardless of their ability to pay for it —which they commonly don’t. Funding for those visits currently comes from federal, state and local taxes, and hospitals in certain cities with high immigrant populations have an expectation for the flow of these patients.

But now that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is set to go into effect in 2014, the public cry from immigrant advocacy groups is growing to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for health care coverage under the Act. Section 1312 (f)(3) of the law: “Access limited to lawful residents. If an individual is not…a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan...”

Under President Obama’s current health care reform plan, undocumented immigrants will have to wait eight years before becoming eligible for public health care benefits, and ten years under a Congressional plan.

We’re in a time when the need for immigration reform has never been more real and our country and government never more ready. However, we’re also in the time of sequestration cuts, shrinking budgets, smaller incomes and higher taxes. Have we created the expectation among undocumented immigrants that by virtue of simply living in the U.S. they should have access to the same government benefits as legal residents, despite the fact that many of them don’t pay the taxes that fund those programs?

Obamacare isn’t free, and undocumented immigrants meeting a certain income threshold would have to pay premiums for any part of the plan they’re eligible for. However, currently the law provides federal subsidies for low-income families applying for public health insurance. According to a 2012 study by the Washington-based Urban Institute, undocumented immigrants —many of whom would require a federal subsidy— will make up the nation’s second-largest population of uninsured, or about 25 percent. All those subsidies would come from U.S. taxpayer pockets.

This isn’t about being anti-immigrant; it’s about following the rules, and not being rewarded for breaking them. My family emigrated from Cuba to the U.S. 50 years ago with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and no expectations or demands of the U.S. government. They worked very hard, followed the rules, and eventually became U.S. citizens. It’s hard for them and other immigrant families like them to watch millions of people who knowingly broke the rules demand equal footing just because they didn’t get caught coming here.

There’s no question that the current health care situation in the U.S. isn’t ideal for undocumented immigrants, but it’s not supposed to be. It’s already difficult enough to make routine health care accessible and manageable for U.S. citizens and legal residents, who must take priority over those living here illegally.

Instead of relying on immigration reform to find a way to pay for undocumented immigrants’ health care with tax dollars, we should focus more on sending a strong message to potential immigrants that legal access to government-funded health care should not be an expectation upon arrival in the United States.

Securing Borders Before Immigration Reform is Backward Thinking

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:04:10 -0400

Before we can talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we have to secure our borders.

This is a mantra that has been repeated time and time again by U.S. politicians —many of them former presidential candidates— who have provided neither a solid description of what a secure border actually looks like, nor an illuminated path toward a system that provides some sort of legal status for the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.

While many people disagree with that statement, many also feel there is no direct correlation between the two, and that immigration reform needs to happen regardless of the security situation along our southwest border with Mexico.

In fact, there is absolutely a direct relationship between the two issues, but for years elected officials with a pulpit to speak from on these matters have gotten it backward. Immigration reform needs to happen now to make it easier to secure our borders.

In general, there are three categories of people who are crossing or could potentially cross illegally from Mexico into the U.S.: terrorists or individuals associated with terrorist groups, drug traffickers and other violent criminals, and immigrants from various countries looking for work and better lives for their families. Securing our borders means stopping threats to our national security before they manage to infiltrate our country, and only two of these three groups pose an actual threat.

Fortunately, not one operational terrorist —meaning someone with a specific plan to blow something up on U.S. soil— has ever entered the U.S. from Mexico, legally or otherwise. But every year, drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of illegal drugs into over 1,200 U.S. cities, raking in billions of dollars in profits as they go. They routinely kill and seriously injure each other and undocumented immigrants, and pose an increasingly dangerous threat to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The third category of border crossers —undocumented migrants from Mexico, Central and South America, and dozens of other countries sprinkled in— vastly outnumber the people in the first two groups. These border crossers do not pose a threat to our national security, and current immigration and border enforcement policies direct a disproportionate amount of resources toward detecting and apprehending non-criminal undocumented immigrants when those resources would be better utilized trying to keep members of Los Zetas or the Gulf cartel out of south Texas.

One example of this resource misdirection is the border fence. Based on current border security policies, the fence is effective along some parts of the border to act as a deterrent to violent drug smugglers and migrants. However, drug smugglers working for Mexican cartels have easily found ways around, under, over, and through it, and migrants move to areas —often much more unforgiving— where the fence ends. Yet, many politicians want to build more fence at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars per mile just to say we have it, and not necessarily because it will be more effective. The virtual border fence was a billion-dollar boondoggle that ended after five years and 53 miles of an electronic barrier that doesn’t work.

What our elected officials don’t seem to understand is that immigration reform has the potential to do much more than just provide legal status to undocumented immigrants and legitimize a much-needed workforce of millions.

It can completely reshape our approach to border security by allowing our border agencies to focus less on job and better-life seekers and more on fund-raisers for terrorist groups, special interest aliens and violent drug smugglers.

With a clearly defined —and legal— process for seeking entry into the U.S. via a temporary worker permit, or a new class of visa or some other method, more and more immigrants won’t need to submit themselves to shady human smugglers and the hardships of the Sonora desert to come here.

Even if immigration reform is wildly successful, universally accepted and implemented quickly, that doesn’t mean illegal immigration will end completely. However, it opens an enormous door to revised policies that can shift our border security focus to the real threats to our national security. Thus, by quickly enacting comprehensive immigration reform, only then can we truly start on the path to effectively securing our borders.

Gun Control Debate Outcome Likely to Disappoint Mexico

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:45:31 -0500

After the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that took the lives of 26 innocent souls in mid-December 2012, numerous world leaders expressed their condolences and solidarity with the United States. One of these leaders was Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico’s new president who had been inaugurated just two weeks prior to the massacre. He must have viewed the shooting with a strange sense of irony, given that his country has been plagued with drug-related massacres in a daily basis for almost a decade.

Peña Nieto, along with many Mexican citizens, is probably also keeping an eye on the ensuing debate over new gun control measures, possibly hoping for restrictions that will keep Mexican drug cartels’ weapons of choice from heading south across the border.

Despite the abundance of firearms on the streets of Mexico, it is incredibly difficult for Mexican citizens to legally obtain a firearm, although the Mexican constitution has a provision similar to our own Second Amendment. Even if a Mexican is able to successfully navigate the gauntlet of paperwork, fees and personal recommendations required to obtain a permit, he or she is limited to purchasing firearms with very low stopping power—.38-caliber or weaker—and can only buy them at Mexico’s sole gun shop.

Yes, you read that correctly. In the entire country of Mexico, there is only one store where citizens can legally buy firearms, and it’s run by the army. Thus, it should come as no surprise that there are only about 6,000 firearms legally registered in Mexico.

As a result of these restrictions, Mexico’s bloodthirsty drug cartels have had to resort for decades to arming themselves through the black market. If you think the internal gun control debate in the United States is bad, you should listen in on the debate over where the black market guns in Mexico come from.

To make a very long story short, the U.S. government asserts that the majority of illegally owned firearms in Mexico —to the tune of about 70 percent— are purchased in the United States. This assertion is largely based on trace data obtained from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Gun rights advocates and lobby groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) contend that this claim is false, that trace data is inexorably flawed, and that most firearms in Mexico come from internal Mexican sources, Central America and other third-world countries. They also believe the trace data is manufactured and an attempt by the Obama administration to leverage those statistics into enacting highly restrictive gun control measures.

For the record, the Mexican government supports the U.S. government’s stance. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderón had no trouble during his tenure pointing the finger of blame at the United States for all the guns flooding his country. After the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado in July 2012, Calderón posted a message on Twitter that said, “Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It kills.” In December 2010, he made the bold and unprecedented move of using the rare privilege of time on the Congressional floor to call for the reinstatement of the expired 2004 assault weapons ban.

It is in this context that Mexico’s collective ears perked up after the current gun control debate began here in light of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in December 2012. The term “assault weapons ban” started getting thrown around rather liberally, and some politicians have gone beyond just wanting to reinstate the old ban. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced a bill into Congress last month that would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of 100 specialty firearms and certain semiautomatic weapons. The bill would also apply the same pariah status to magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

To understand the impact that both the old ban and the new proposed ban would have on southbound weapons trafficking, it’s important to know what firearms Mexican cartels prefer to use and the manner in which they purchase those firearms. According to ATF and Mexican government seizure statistics, the most commonly recovered firearms in Mexico are .223-caliber Bushmaster rifles (one of these was found at the scene of the Sandy Hook massacre), 7.62mm Romarm/Cugir rifles (a.k.a. AK-47 variants), .223-caliber DPMS, Inc. rifles (a.k.a. AR-15 variants), and 5.7mm Fabrique Nationale Herstal pistols (which go by the brand name FiveSeven®). It should be noted that these pistols are capable of firing armor-piercing ammunition.

Mexican cartels obtain these firearms from several different places, but the United States is arguably the closest, cheapest, and most convenient source. Cartels hire U.S. citizens with no criminal history —known as straw purchasers, or strawmen— to walk into gun shops or attend gun shows and legally buy everything on their cartel-provided shopping list. The straw buyer fills out the appropriate ATF forms and submits to a background check, which he or she usually passes. After the purchase, the straw buyer hands off the weapons to a middle man, who makes arrangements for the guns to be transported across the border into Mexico and into cartel hands.

It should be noted that currently it is legal to manufacture, sell and own all of these firearms. However, if Senator Feinstein’s proposed gun ban were to miraculously become law, all that would change. It specifically names 157 types of firearms to be prohibited, including all AK-47 and AR-15 variants, all Thompson rifles, Uzi-type pistols, and many more. Cartel straw buyers would no longer be able to purchase their favorite firearms through easy and legal means. Even private face-to-face sales of these weapons would be prohibited, and American gun enthusiasts would be more likely to stockpile and fiercely protect these guns rather than make a possibly shady sale that might land them in jail.

This situation would have a huge negative impact on cartel logistics. With one of their primary sources of preferred firearms effectively dried up, they would have to resort to much more costly and time-to-transport intensive sources. This isn’t to say that most of the guns currently on Mexican streets would magically disappear, but the flow of these weapons from external sources into Mexico would certainly slow down, and perhaps allow seizures by Mexican authorities to finally get ahead of the curve. This is the ultimate desire of the Mexican government and citizenry. It would also be a huge political and diplomatic victory for the U.S. government, which is tired of being at the pointy end of Mexico’s index finger.

In reality, however, this situation is a pipe dream. Despite the slight shift in American attitudes about assault weapon ownership as a result of Sandy Hook and Aurora, we still remain a gun-loving nation and have a Congress largely under the thumb of the gun lobby. Much of America was visibly bristling at President Obama’s recent 23 gun control-related executive actions, most of which had to do with tightening up background checks and none of which had to do with restricting gun purchases. But it’s clear that the odds of any sort of gun ban legislation actually making it to Obama’s desk for signature in the near future are slim to none.

This is sure to be very disappointing for the Mexican government, and probably a source of amusement for Mexican cartels. However, through all the political mess, this manages to leave the Obama administration sitting pretty with its drug war-ravaged neighbor, able to say, “Hey, we tried!” and blame the gun lobby for its inability to slow down the southbound flow of firearms through legislation.

This isn’t to say that anti-gun legislation is the silver bullet for keeping assault weapons out of Mexico, because it certainly isn’t. Mexico has a lot of internal problems to solve, with corruption at the top of the list, before it can make a meaningful dent in the weapons trafficking crisis. It shouldn’t rely on the political temperature changing in another country as a means to improve its security situation. It also shouldn’t expect the U.S. government to change its gun laws to appease another country, or for any reason other than because it’s what’s best for the safety of the American people.

However, this doesn’t mean that significant measures can’t be taken to strengthen the enforcement of our existing gun laws or that actions can’t be taken that would place more scrutiny –not restrictions– on the sale of firearms preferred by Mexican cartels. Unfortunately, the debate over such baby-step measures will continue in earnest for some time on this side of the border, meaning the Mexican people will need to keep looking inward for possible weapons trafficking solutions.

Sylvia Longmire: Silence on Drug War in Races Speaks Volumes

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:28:47 -0400

The United States shares a nearly 2,000-mile long border with a country that has witnessed over 100,000 drug-related murders in the last six years alone. Mexican drug cartels are making tens of billions of dollars every year from the trafficking of illegal drugs across our southwest border, along with kidnapping, extortion, fuel theft and piracy.

American demand for illegal drugs has not wavered, and the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 90 percent of marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine consumed in the U.S. is supplied by Mexican cartels. Most disturbing of all is the fact they have a presence in almost 1,300 U.S. cities.

Neither the drug war in Mexico, nor border security challenges, nor America’s failed drug policies were mentioned once during the three presidential debates. The silence on these critical issues says one thing very loud and clear: none of them will be a top priority for either President Obama or Governor Romney in 2013.

Sadly, this omission from public political discourse has been typical in the last few years. On January 24th, 2012, President Obama delivered his fourth State of the Union address. The flailing American economy was the centerpiece of the speech, and for good reason.

However, when discussing foreign policy and external threats, the southwest border merited one sentence, Mexico’s drug war was never mentioned, and the subject of immigration reform took up one tiny paragraph of space: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office…We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.”

These omissions from President Obama’s annual address weren’t a first. There is no mention of Mexico, immigration or border security in the 2009 State of the Union address, and the drug war was in full swing —particularly in Tijuana, where the murder rate was reaching record numbers in a turf battle between the Arellano Félix Organization and the Sinaloa Federation. The same goes for the 2010 speech.

In the 2011 State of the Union address, immigration and border security warranted a two-sentence mention: “Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.” However, there was no reference to unprecedented cross-border cooperation, the increasing threat of transnational criminal organizations (better known as drug cartels), or the challenge of stopping southbound weapons trafficking.

There was a similar pattern in the rare mentions of border security during the GOP debates. On November 22, 2011, CNN hosted the National Security Debate between the seven Republican candidates at the time. They all discussed their views on how best to secure the border, but all the proposed solutions were vague—probably because there is no standard idea for what a secure border means or would look like.

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s strategy consisted of “strategic fencing, with the boots on the ground, with the aviation assets, and then working with Mexico in particular.” Congressman Ron Paul said, “What I'm sort of tired of is all the money spent and lives lost worrying about the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan and forgetting about our borders between the United States and Mexico. We should think more about, you know, what we do at home.”

However, he moved straight into a discussion about illegal immigration without offering a specific border security strategy. Later on, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich mentioned “controlling the border,” and Governor Romney said, “Certainly we have to secure the border.” But neither offered a detailed explanation of what that might entail.

There is no doubt that America needs to be concerned about the threat of a nuclear Iran, a weakening Pakistan, and a job- and dollar-sucking China. But how can the two presidential candidates completely ignore during three debates the unprecedented levels of horrific violence happening right next door? How is a criminal insurgency fueled by insatiable American demand for illegal drugs not near the top of a national security concerns list for the next Administration?

Fortunately, the issue hasn’t been completely ignored. In July 2011, the White House published its Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, in which it clearly stated: “…the Administration has concluded that, in the intervening years, international —or transnational— organized crime has expanded dramatically in size, scope, and influence and that it poses a significant threat to national and international security.” In 2009, the Justice Department called them “the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.” But if both the White House and the Justice Department have issued reports about the threat cartels pose to US security, why isn’t a discussion about it debate-worthy?

For politicians, addressing Mexico’s drug war head-on usually involves talking about three very messy subjects: immigration, gun control, and drug policy. Forget the annoying fact that neither candidate could adequately explain what a secure border looks like or how they would achieve it. No elected official wants to touch on the specifics of a strategy for immigration reform or a revision of gun or drug laws in an election year. As if the butchery happening in Mexico every day—and increasingly to innocent people—weren’t ugly enough, airing opinions on drug war policy this close to Election Day seems to be an even uglier proposition.

Tragically, the real losers from the omission of this debate mention are the Mexican and American people. Imagine how outgoing Mexican President Felipe Calderón views this repeated snub after years of sacrifice and criticism, and how incoming President Enrique Peña Nieto sees where his most important international relationship ranks on the totem pole of US security issues. Many Americans who don’t live near the southwest border are already under the impression that Mexico’s drug war isn’t their problem, hearing the repeated mantra that our borders are safer than ever and not knowing that cartel tentacles extend into virtually every American community.

At this point, voters can only hope that the winner on November 6th gets the message that immediately and publicly addressing the criminal insurgency happening right now in Mexico is just as important as helping Americans understand the threat emanating from Iran, China, and Pakistan. Otherwise, the continued silence will keep sending the message to Americans, Mexico, and the world that were more concerned about a nebulous threat 8,000 miles away than we are about the carnage right next door that we help inspire.

Opinion: Not your average (Latina) princess

Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:28:42 -0400

I’m not a princess. And I don’t think anyone who knows me well would disagree. However, you’d have a hard time convincing my two young sons otherwise. You see, their mother holds the title of Ms. Wheelchair Southern USA, and when I don my official sash and tiara for local events, they call me “Princess Mommy.”

I won’t lie; I kind of like it. As a Latina woman growing up in South Florida, I certainly had plenty of opportunities to play the role of princess — a traditional quinceañera (which I gladly passed up in favor of a Sweet Sixteen cruise), prom, my wedding day, and numerous professional formal galas.

But as much as I enjoy dressing up, I always leaned more toward getting a little dirt under my nails. That’s probably why going into law enforcement when I went on active duty in the Air Force years ago was such a great fit.

Never in a million years would I have pictured myself where I am today — working very hard preparing to compete for the national title of Ms. Wheelchair USA on July 29 and 30 in Ohio. I joke around that I’m going to be the Sandra Bullock of this pageant á la "Miss Congeniality" because of my background as a Special Agent, combined with the fact that I’m … a little rough around the edges.

When I found out about the premise of this pageant for exceptional women with disabilities, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. Ms. Wheelchair USA recognizes that all women, despite any disability, can be beautiful, feel glamorous and be self-confident.

The pageant was founded 17 years ago as a state contest in northeast Ohio, and has grown in support and participation to include women from across the U.S. The program is presented by The Dane Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which made me feel confident that this was a legitimate way to promote the image of women with disabilities as strong and independent.

I first came across the pageant while looking for ways to promote my own charity, The PreJax Foundation, which provides college scholarships to exceptional students who either have multiple sclerosis (MS) or a parent with MS. Immediately I was drawn to the fact that Ms. Wheelchair USA focuses so much on a contestant’s character and commitment to community service.

The biggest portion of the judging relies on personal interviews and the contestant’s presentation of her personal platform — the cause that she would be supporting and promoting for the year of her reign.

To even contemplate the opportunity to promote programs that support children of parents with disabilities, I first had to win a state or regional title. During the application-only process, I focused on my achievements as a service-disabled veteran, author and consultant, disability rights advocate, entrepreneur, world traveler, and single mother. Then word came in late April that I had been selected as Ms. Wheelchair Southern USA!

Little did I know the real work was about to begin. While I can only speak to my own experience as Ms. Wheelchair Southern USA, I think I can safely say that few people really understand how challenging it can be to prepare for a national pageant.

First, it’s critical to line up sponsors because travel to the pageant site, clothes, fees, gifts, etc., add up financially. Second, perfecting and memorizing a three-minute platform speech takes a LOT of practice. Third, it does your title no good to sit at home and wait for the pageant to roll around. It’s very important for state and regional titleholders to get out in their communities. Not only does it help promote the pageant and its message of inclusiveness for women with disabilities; it also helps promote local businesses as our supporters.

Admittedly my anxiety is building as I finish prepping my formal gowns, interview dresses, gifts, platform speech, and so many other things. But the opportunity to not only promote my passion for supporting children of parents with disabilities – and also meet women who look and live and overcome challenges just like me – is something even a reluctant princess like me can’t dismiss with a royal wave.