El Imperio Contraataque Part 3: The Three Bad Roads to Victory

Posted in Politics
Mon, May 16 - 9:00 am EDT | 2 years ago by
Comments: 44
Be Sociable, Share!
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Lines of Departure

El Imperio Contraataque (The Empire Strikes Back): Fighting the War to Retain the American Southwest

Part 3, The Three Bad Roads to Victory

To be upfront on this, in case anyone doubted that I was, I genuinely expect some version of the war I’ve been discussing to come to pass. It may not be the worst case such I’ve been laying out the last couple of months; but, just as likely, it may. Moreover, to recap what I said early on, this is existential. There’s no particularly good reason to think that the people who fled Mexico 1.0 are going to make anything better of Mexico 2.0, should we happen to lose. In other words, it will become indistinguishable from what they fled soon enough, so indistinguishable that they’ll pretty soon decide that the new border – the new longer, less inhospitable, hence easier to cross border – is no more legitimate than the old one, while life on the other side will look better than what they have.

So we can’t even surrender, you see; we must win.

Winning could actually be quite easy. All we’d need to do is give up our basic decency and humanity. There are, indeed, as mentioned in the subtitle, three certain and easy roads to victory: Specific and genocidal terror, ethnic cleansing, and a reread of the 13th Amendment.

To take the last first, the 13th Amendment reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Okay, you lefties and social justice warriors over there running for your fainting couches; just stop right where you are. No, you don’t escape that easily. Yes, this means that slavery is not unconstitutional. Oh, we can’t have hereditary slavery, no. We can’t let people sell themselves into slavery, no. Any children born of slaves would be free and, by current law, citizens. But if we make the law such that “illegal and unauthorized presence in the United States shall be punished by a period of not less than twenty-five years of unpaid penal servitude, followed by deportation to the country of origin, or the border, whichever is most convenient to the United States, proceeds to pay the expenses of border enforcement, auction tomorrow,” it’s prima facie constitutional, no matter how distasteful.

What does that get us? It gets us ten (or – personal opinion – as many as twenty or so) million illegals running frantically for the border because, even if Mexico sucks, it still beats being stood on an auction block and sold to some rancher, landscaper, brothel or escort agency owner, or pool maintainer who won’t even have to pay you, even if he’ll have to feed and clothe you. It would also be pie to make it retroactive, or mostly so, simply by putting in a very long statute of limitations such that anyone who got to stay via an amnesty would still be guilty of the earlier offense, and still subject to state enslavement. Ah, but what about ex post facto laws and the prohibition on them? Why, it would be no more of an ex post facto law than the Democrat-lauded Lautenberg Amendment, which deprived of their Second Amendment rights a number of Americans for crimes previously committed, or at least confessed to, for which the existing penalty did not include loss of civil rights.1

How many Latins disappear after that? Who can say, but I suspect that they won’t be in the running anymore for largest American minority. Moreover, I’d be very surprised if we actually ended up auctioning off as many as fifty of either class before the rest self-deported, presuming they hadn’t self-deported upon passage of the law.

Hell, we could even show enough minimal decency as to allow those who are serving or who served and were honorably discharged from the armed forces to stay, and keep their citizenship, even if previously illegal, along with their families. What a great bunch of guys and gals we gringos can be, no?

Evil? No shit, Sherlock. But it’s not impossible and it’s not unconstitutional. Moreover, it’s not even necessarily the most evil thing out there and available.


Not many people would actually end up enslaved by the above so, however evil in conception, the reality is likely to be less so. This is not true of Course of Action Two, which involves ethnic cleansing. By that I mean, of course, rounding up and deporting not just all illegals, but all Latins, period, possibly along with anyone who might be a threat or, even unwittingly and unwillingly, a cover for a threat. That means not even lifetime or longtime citizens of the United States get a pass. Even my wife wouldn’t get a pass and she’s a better citizen than the overwhelming majority of gringos at large.2 The best platoon sergeant I had in my rifle company, Epolito Martinez, wouldn’t get a pass. No, it’s insufficient recompense that our national “wise Latina” would be marched off, too.

And even that’s not necessarily the worst of it.


At least the slavery option and the ethnic cleansing option would require serious organizational capability and manpower, which means we have control over them and can decide to use them or (hopefully) not to.

But what about terror from the gringos?3 Sadly, no, it doesn’t take much force or organizational ability to engage in terror. Then, too, gringos have a lot more of both to hand than, say, your average Somali or Yemeni or Saudi camel herder. Moreover, the motive will be there if a) MALA4 engages in terror, which it will, or b) other, gentler methods are seen to be ineffective. But the government will fight that, you say? The government will eliminate it, you think? Oh, really? How can you count on the government being able to suppress gringo terror when it hadn’t been able to suppress Latino terror?

And so, when I tell you in the future about the things that will be necessary to do to win, I’d like the more gently raised and sensitive reader to remember that it is probably only by winning on that fourth, admittedly chancy, road to victory that we can avoid the other three roads – far worse roads, albeit smoother – mentioned above. Now, with that out of the way, I hope we can discuss this in the future without any liberal, leftist, or libertarian getting the vapors.

Don’t miss Part 1 and Part 2 in this series.


1 Do liberals and lefties ever even think of the longer term implications of the precedents they set up? And they think they’re clever, too. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

2 I’d have to go, too, of course, or the body count resulting from deportation of my wife would be embarrassing to the powers that be.

3 I discussed this previously here: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/10/06/politics/defining-terrorism-random-acts-terror/ and the four that followed.

4 Conceptually the Mexican-American Liberation Army, as previously discussed.

Photo by Getty Images

Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.

Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.

Social Justice

Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

Women in the Military

Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

Photo by Getty Images

The Kurds

Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Sorry Rodney

Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

Service Guarantees Citizenship

Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images


Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

Gun-Free Zones

Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

Dear Germany

Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

Sanctuary Cities

Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

Gun-Free Zones

Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

Price in Blood

Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.


Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

Jade Helm 15

Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

Does China Really Want War?

Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

Breakup of the United States

Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

The Bergdahl Case

If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

U.S. Navy

No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

Military Chow

Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

The Soldier's Load

Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

The Left and the Military

Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

Defining Terrorism

Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

Humanitarian Assistance

Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

Why War Games Fail

It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

Military Integrity

Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

Arab Armies

Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

The Purpose of War

A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

  • Albert

    I suspect that if we go down any of those roads, #3 will be most likely. Doesn’t require government to get off its ass and do anything.

    • Tom Kratman

      Most likely and, in many ways, the worst. But how do you stop this once it starts? The 4GW proponents seem pretty clueless about that.

    • http://blog.timp.com.au TimP

      I think Lind’s opinion on stopping something like this is basically “de-escalation might, maybe, perhaps work … if you’re lucky.”

      He’s very explicit about how destroying the state’s legitimacy is a bad idea, because it’s very likely not undoable.

      You American’s might get lucky in that if the government refuses to play it might only destroy the legitimacy of the federal government; allowing you to keep the state governments with either a weakened or a dissolved union.

    • Tom Kratman

      In many ways that’s the worst scenario. We’re far too capable to allow a potential enemy that used to be us. Moreover, and for good reason, US foreign policy has always had as goal number one “No peers in this hemisphere.” We were ready, physically and mentally, to go to war with the UK, even during the Civil War, if British troop strength in Canada went above a certain fairly small maximum. It’s something we inherited from the Brits that is still and also deeply American. There will be no peace between the remnants of a fragmented US, only perpetual bloodletting perhaps temporarily relieved by short term truces.

      People outside usually misunderstand America. We tend to misunderstand ourselves, too. The truth is we are _not_ a modern country; we are an 18th century – some ways 17th century – country with the trappings of modernity.

    • Andrew Foss

      Pretty clueless and pretty answerless. I know you know about what happened in Iraq once we crossed the border and why it was a shitshow from the word “Go”. Those in charge didn’t know whether to shit or go blind when the Iraqi Army ditched their uniforms but kept their AKs in the face of our advance.

      Option 3 is possible, but there *is* a (usually “Third”…) fourth way, also last successfully used by a “tolerant” “Liberal” by the name of Roosevelt: (No, not the Cavalryman) Declaration of war and Internment.

      Congress can definitely suspend Habeas Corpus. (It’s specifically noted in Article 1, section 9, clause 2 of the constitution: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

      I would consider the notional MALA to be both invading and leading an insurrection. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to suggest that fed.gov could (and rightly and necessarily *should*) be done, but so’s the idea of bandaging a 4 year old with shrapnel because he found and played with a hand grenade in a war zone. Necessary, but distasteful. (Yes, BTDT, wasn’t very fun because I didn’t have a Terp or enough Arabic to soothe and reassure the kid while I applied aid.)

    • Tom Kratman

      For various reasons I expect ALDA, MALA and the feds to avoid calling it an invasion or even war, in public, as long as possible.

    • Andrew Foss

      Naturally. But “rebellion”? I’d be willing to bet there’d be some (most likely on the right) with the intestinal fortitude to call a “spade” a “fucking shovel”.

      And those notional congresscritters, to include those who wouldn’t agree to naming it an “invasion”, could call it an rebellion in all but name (Continued linguistic matricide. Unfortunately.) That wouldn’t necessarily remove Congress’ ability to suspend Habeas. As unpalatable as it would be, I could see SCOTUS looking at the internment’s enabling legislation and saying “The Constitution is not a suicide pact. This is within Congress’ necessary and proper duties. We find for the United States.” per curiam. In more flowery prose.

      But that’s all timing: Internment could only be looked at as an option after overt steps were taken by MALA/ALDA.

    • Harry Kitchener

      That’s a victory for the insurgents as well, in that the desired end state – withdrawal of central government from the affected region and a loss of popular faith in the institutions of government – would apply. From the cartel point of view, anarchy is anarchy. Note here that the rabid vigilantes would be every man’s meat once central government cover and protection were withdrawn and there are an awful lot more brown folk likely to head North with blood in their eyes if Option 3 kicks off than there are vigilante types implementing Option 3.

      As our esteemed host says below, this is hard to stop once it starts and I can’t see a Federal government having the appetite even to try.

  • Ori Pomerantz

    This might explain why the cartels aren’t trying to detach the south west. IIRC, it is a very competitive business (one might even say, cut throat) and the people at the top aren’t usually stupid or deluded about what violence can and cannot accomplish.

    • Tom Kratman

      No, they’re not stupid. But to think thoughts like these requires a certain kind of mindset. I don’t have a monopoly, of course, nor even a controlling interest, but I can think about them more coldly than most.

  • Michel Maiorana

    I am a fan of option one as long as it’s applied even to those of non latin persuasion including northern europeans. Plus you wouldn’t actually have to keep those sold into servitude after the mass migration. Put them on a plane home. You could even use straw buyers to do the actual buying. A ready made psyops scenario. Ingenious.

    • Tom Kratman

      That sounds tempting, but I don’t think it works on its own, anymore than giving amnesty to any number of penal prisoners does. Carlyle perhaps said it best, or at least simplest, “A lie will not stand.”

    • Michel Maiorana

      We could put our Straw bought slaves in an internment camp located in a highly restricted gov’t area in Nevada. Then after the exodus they can receive a “Presidential pardon” then be sent home.

    • Tom Kratman

      Somehow, I don’t think niceness is going to figure in very much in a scheme to fix our illegal immigration problems via slavery.

    • Michel Maiorana

      The slave option is just wishful thinking. Like legalizing drugs to cut off cartel funding or a declared brutal war against ISIL It’s grasping at straws to avoid blood in American streets.
      The reality is it will be very bloody and may end in a full blown civil war. Maybe even a nuke war if certain foreign gov’ts over estimate their chances.

    • Tom Kratman

      See, that’s the scary part; it’s _not_ wishful thinking. They don’t even have to call it slavery, which would involve negative PR; they need only enact the law and the punishment, which isn’t especially hard to do in an existential crisis. The 13th comes in when someone objects to the law. “Sorry judge, even if counsel for the accused / convicted / appellant were correct, it would still be constitutional.”

      Doesn’t have to be done by the feds, either. Any state could do it and it would still be constitutional.

    • Michel Maiorana

      By wishful thinking I meant the least bloody of the three. But since the old gods demand their blood options two and three is what we will get spread as widely and liberally as possible. As a bonus and without the US as a stabilizing force the rest of the world will probably indulge in an orgy of score settling. With the added bonus of every expansionist making their move.

    • Tom Kratman
    • Michel Maiorana

      Couldn’t have said it better. Perfect.

  • RLP43200

    Whenever someone talks about “evil in wartime”, I ask them this:

    “How many cities did the Nazis firebomb off the map? Coventry, and maybe Rotterdam if one wishes to stretch the definition. (Lidice was done with bulldozers, and didn’t rate being called a “city” anyway; and most Russian cities were a combination effort by both sides.) Now, how many German cities did the Allies firebomb off the map? Or, for a short list: How many *didn’t* they firebomb off the map? Christ, in the late stages, 8th AF was being used to clear advance lanes for the Army. And that’s not including the Japanese cities firebombed off the map by the USA *alone*.

    “The moral here is simple; In order to Win, one *must* be Ten Times Worse than one’s foe. He kills one of yours? You kill ten of his. He bombs one of your cities? You bomb ten of his. And if this means Extermination, *SO* *BE* *IT* — the only time a Great White second-guesses itself is when it swings around to see if the guy it just turned into lunchmeat had a dive partner.”

    • Tom Kratman

      The problem here is multifold; just to take a few: 1. Who are our foes in this? 2. Tax revenues for an enemy state will drop if we blast their cities. Why do we want to drop our own, though? 3. If your people will no longer stand for massacre, then massacre is the quickest way to lose the war.

      In a large part, this kind of warfare has sprung up not just because we’re insufficiently ruthless, though we are, but because they cannot face heavy metal warfare, and we can’t use heavy metal without knowing who _they_ are.

    • Josephaoneal3

      “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”…..!tn415etwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !tn415e:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCapitalGetPay-Hour$98…. .✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!tn415e….,..

    • Harry Kitchener

      The opponent has no reason to seek battle on terms which suit you, of course – that’s the whole point of asymmetric warfare aka terrorism, a perfectly serviceable way of prosecuting a conflict under conditions of maximum advantage to yourself and maximum disadvantage to your opponent.

      In contrast to all the Mao/Marighella stuff from the 60s, the end state here is not the creation of liberated zones and an army which can take on and beat the State, it’s just making it too expensive, too difficult and too unpopular for the US to keep doing its thing in the four border States (of which probably 2 or 3 will actually fall). No doubt, for cosmetic reasons, the lines on the maps won’t change, but life in the newly detached States will be very different on very many levels.

    • Tom Kratman

      To be more specific, the urban guerrillas (Marighella) and peoples revolutionary guerrillas (Mao) intended, in the former case, to become so annoying that a repressive state would arise which would be so obnoxious that the people would rise up, more or less spontaneously, to get rid of it; while the Maoist approach depended on outgoverning the government and out-armying its army. The former theory – which always failed _miserably_ – was the kind of preposterous nonsense that only an intellectual could believe in. The latter case still has a place, though, if not to the level of divisions and corps, at least to the level of companies and _maybe_ battalions to fight to destroy the police and keep gringo costs up and, perhaps, also for the implicit statement, “We intend to win and are creating the means of doing so.”

  • soft_water

    I like footnote 2. Feel the same way.

    • Michel Maiorana

      I’m part Sicilian and dark enough to be mistaken for Arab or Mexican. My dilemma would be let them take me or take as many as I can before they get me. As the idea of being ethnically cleansed is new I’ll have to think about it. Of course if they deport me to a south seas island I might be packed and ready to go when they come.

    • Tom Kratman

      I’m ever so slightly Indian (dot, not feather) with, as with all wholly or partly Ashkenazi descended sorts, some trace elements of black. I can tan considerably darker than my wife is normally.

      Mox Nix, though; if it comes to that I’m heading to Panama.

    • Michel Maiorana

      I liked Vietnam when I was there (People and food), not the war. Not thrilled with the gov’t there, though Americans are supposed to be held in high regard these days. My wife suffered severe burns as a child and can’t handle the heat so maybe Switzerland. In reality they probably will confiscate everything and dump us on the border penniless.

    • Tom Kratman

      Well, the point of this column is that there are things we ought prefer not to do, as prelude to doing some things we’ll still dislike, but dislike less.

    • Michel Maiorana

      Once the bullets start flying it won’t be long before our worst fears are realized since everything is morally relative these days. Yes we shouldn’t do any of these three things we should avoid them like the plague. Option one leads to concentration camps (By another name of course). Options two and three lead to rivers of blood and not just on the border. If ethnic cleansing becomes widespread away from the border some transporters will decide it’s to far from say New York to Texas and we will end up with mass graves in the woods. The terror of option three won’t stay confined to the border.

    • Tom Kratman

      Nope, it won’t.

    • Kent Des Rochers

      I for one will not be leaving. My family has been here since the 1820′s, before Texas was even a republic and they were at the Battle of San Jacinto. If my family survived Mexican dictators, the Comanche, Yankee carper baggers, droughts, floods, tornadoes, pestilence and tax loving Democrats. Well I think we’ll be staying.

    • Michel Maiorana

      I was born in Detroit, My parents were born in Detroit, My mothers parents were born in Detroit. My stepfather was born in Kentucky and his family has been in America since the revolution at least. When the cleansing happens and they come for you they won’t care for your pedigree. If you don’t resist they dump you in Mexico. If you resist they will kill you and your family. With me it’s over 1500 miles to Mexico. If I’m lucky they let me go to Canada (I live in Michigan’s Upper Penn.). If I’m not lucky or resist it’s it will be an unmarked grave in the woods.

    • Kent Des Rochers

      For me it’s not a matter of pedigree either. Our good host has already made the case as to why Texas will not fall. I am but one of quite a million people in this state that will not run. A lot of folks in this country and abroad make fun of us and our ways, so be it that’s their opinions.

      You have said would head over to Canada, Bon Chance, enjoy the taxes. The closest border to me is 220 miles away and that’s Mexico. If I am to fall I want it to be for a good reason. Defending my home or my neighbors is a good reason. You have heard the saying “Remember The Alamo” it is not a platitude, it is a battle cry that means we will be avenged.

      Col. Kratman has called himself “a Cassandra with a dick” I for one hopes he will be wrong and let this be one set of prophecies that do not come to pass.

    • Michel Maiorana

      Didn’t say I wouldn’t resist or that I would run. If I didn’t run from Vietnam I’m not running now. What I meant is if there is a slight possibility they may give me that choice. Ethnic cleansers are not known as choice people. My favorite choices stated in previous columns is legalize drugs to cut off cartel cash, no money, no insurgency. Coupled with a full on DECLARED war against ISSIL to remind all bad actors what a mistake it is to assault and provoke the US. When they come for me (if I’m not already on the border fighting), they will leave with a lot less than when they came. Mich. upper penn. is like Vietnam but with pine trees and snow. I’m old and slow but if someone wants to war with me I can still go. I was stationed at FT. Hood. I know Texans. Pity the fools who provoke them.

    • Ori Pomerantz

      Speaking as a Jew, being ethnically cleansed is a lot more survivable than being in a civil war, they can’t take your job skills.

    • Michel Maiorana

      Depends on the version of ethnic cleansing. There is the extremely rare peaceful ethnic cleansing (get out or we will kill you). Then there is the ultra common Communist, Nazi, Serb, Rwanda type.

    • Ori Pomerantz

      Relatively peaceful ethnic cleansing is much more common if there’s a place that would accept you. That’s how the Jews left the Arab world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries), the Greeks left Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey), etc. From the cleanser’s perspective, it is much easier to tell people to get out than to kill them.

      A lot of Jewish traditions are ways to increase the chance there will be some place that would accept you.

    • Michel Maiorana

      To many times though official policy is get out or be killed but actual policy is to kill without mercy. The Arabic policy of today is a good example. They may say go to Europe or America but what they mean is we will kill you when we come there. That may not happen in the scenario being discussed but only if we are luckier than we deserve.

  • soft_water

    In option 2 how many people who pay their taxes, obey the law and work hard are you going to accidentally send back? And wouldn’t that have a huge impact on your economy?

    • Tom Kratman

      Large and unfortunate, which doesn’t mean it won’t or can’t happen. And it wouldn’t be accidental.

  • http://randolphbeck.com/blog/ Randy Beck

    Okay, you’ve made the case for transferring jihadi detainees to the criminal justice system.

    That is, for those who can be tried, of course.

  • ThalesLives

    If Option 2 came about, my family would probably be thrown out. I am part Armenian and tan darkly as a result. My wife is of Cuban ancestry.

    But where would they throw us out to? Who would take us? It seems more likely that this scenario would result in extermination than exile. Of course, I suspect that a significant percentage of the population would rise up violently in such an instance. That could end in Civil War rather than ethnic cleansing.

    • Tom Kratman

      Oh, that’s not hard: 1. use army to occupy part of norther Mexico. 2. Drive deportees over into that part. 3. Withdraw army. 4. Let Mexico worry about it.

Be Sociable, Share!