The following is an account of the events that lead to the present reality of El Paso’s border community.

June 9, 1993

A sad day for the Sinaloa drug cartel. On this date, Guatemalan authorities apprehended Joaquin Guzmán Loera, nicknamed El Chapo. El Chapo, predecessor of drug lord Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, was sentenced to 20 years in jail and was scheduled to be extradited to the United States in early 2001. He remained powerful even behind bars because of his influence over prominent politicians, prison guards, and public office candidates.

2000

Seven years passed and El Chapo was now incarcerated in the “maximum security” Puente Grande prison in Jalisco, Mexico. In this same year, the PAN party celebrated the victory of Vicente Fox, the first non-PRI party President in over 70 years.

January 19, 2001

El Chapo escaped from prison a few days before his scheduled extradition, apparently hidden inside a laundry van. Curiously enough, Calderon’s recently appointed Sub-secretary of Public Security, Jorge Tello Peón, visited the prison a few days prior to the escape to conduct a “surprise inspection” of the facility. Peón announced El Chapo’s escape and was later investigated for possibly collaborating in the incident. Although the Mexican government found no connection, Peón resigned 45 days later citing personal reasons. Peón’s resigning sparked a series of investigations that lead to the implication of at least 78 people.

With El Chapo’s return, the Sinaloa Cartel, whose main operation was smuggling cocaine from Colombia to the United States, began to rebuild.

El Chapo began to exercise his tremendous influence to extend the Cartel’s operations across the country. He became Mexico’s top drug kingpin in 2003 when Cárdenas, leader of the Gulf Cartel, was arrested. With Cárdenas’s arrest, the Sinaloa Cartel became the most powerful Mexican cartel. The Sinaloa Cartel added production, transshipment, storage, and marijuana and heroin distribution to its list of illicit activities.

2004

Mexico held its presidential election. Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, the top contender, lost to PAN candidate Felipe Calderón Hinojosa by a small margin (35.31% to 35.89%). The small margin raised suspicions of corruption and electoral fraud because a vote-by-vote recount was never granted, although a general recount took place.

President Calderón vouched to fight the drug cartels by cutting their money supply and using the military to command captures. Calderon’s pledge marks the beginning of Juárez’s current violent reality.

Juárez’s drug trafficking activity was under the control of the Juárez Cartel, an ally of the Gulf Cartel, lead by Vicente Carrillo Fuentes. Juárez Cartel’s activities ran smoothly and rarely had incidents with authorities and civilians. The city ran its normal course; business was flourishing, U.S. imports and exports were growing, and economic development was advancing. Although Juárez occasionally did see murders, the targets of these attacks were connected to drug-related activities.

Late 2007

The Sinaloa Cartel, intending to extend its control, began to infiltrate the operations of the Juárez Cartel. This sparked an inter-cartel war that lives to date.

2008

Up to this point, Calderon had curiously directed his anti-drug war only to El Chapo’s enemies. Calderon’s administration captured leaders of the Gulf Cartel, dissidents of the Sinaloa Cartel, and leaders of the Juarez Cartel, including Alfredo Beltrán Leyva.

In addition, Iván Archivaldo Guzmán, Chapo’s brother, and Claudia Adriana Elenes Salazar, Chapo’s cousin, were both released from jail. Furthermore, El Chapo openly married beauty queen Emma Coronel Aizpuru in Canales, Durango in 2007. Authorities did nothing to stop him. Finally, a study by the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México yielded that out of 53,174 drug trafficking related detentions, only 941 were related to Sinaloa Cartel operations.

Pressure mounted as Calderon’s initiatives began to take a toll on the Juárez Cartel’s finances and operations, which lead to an obscure and rarely mentioned event. Governor José Reyes Baeza walked into his Chihuahua City residence to find his family at gunpoint. The governor has had his hands tied to the Juárez Cartel since. The Juárez Cartel has responded to its decreasing money supply by extorting prominent individuals, business owners and civilians, and brutally killing innocent bystanders to demonstrate authority.

The Future

These events outline an inter-cartel power struggle that has killed thousands of Mexican residents, annihilated business creation and growth, and has caused community anger, fear and disbelief.

As Juárez’s sister city, El Paso has a duty to support its brothers and sisters from Juárez. It is essential that Calderon’s successor do everything in his power to stop the violence in Mexico.

Certain careers have large obstacles to overcome, however dedication and persistence will be determining factors that will enable everyone to reach their goals and be successful. Differentiating themselves from the crowd and taking self-initiative will secure the dream job a student hankers to obtain. “This is a long process of training and high performance. My recommendation is that you always achieve the highest grades during school; and during your work experience, make the most possible effort to be the best. The level of competition among government agencies, businesses, and corporations is very high, therefore it is imperative that one differentiates from the rest,” said Antonio Ortega, Commercial Counselor for Mexico in Michigan and Trade and Investment Representative for Hidalgo and Estado de Mexico, during one of our conversations.

Many students, like me, want to pursue a profession that is not necessarily common and requires a lifetime commitment.

I want to become a prominent ambassador to my country. Specific prerequisites and a challenging background, stated in Chapter IV of the Law of the Mexican Exterior Service (Ley del Servicio Exterior Mexicano), come adhered to my goal. Even though the requirements are challenging, the burden I have imposed on myself to promote the prosperity of Mexico and its untapped intelligence and talent weigh more than any other barrier that may come along my journey.

Living in a border city like Juárez has enabled me to experience the desperation of people from South Mexico and Central America. These people come to Juárez to attempt to illegally enter U.S. borders, in the hope of having a brighter future for themselves and their families. People still believe that “the grass is greener on the other side of the River,” and do not take into account that they will jeopardize their life and their family’s wellbeing by walking long days in hot deserts or traveling inside unventilated trailers as cargo before they reach the green grass. Why is it that immigrants do not stay in their country and prosper with its country’s resources? Is it the government’s inefficiency of creating jobs for its people? Or is it the people’s attitude?

When Hernan Cortes first landed in America in 1504, he noticed that the Mexican soil was rich and fertile, thus fought against anyone for the acquisition of such land. Mexico has excellent resources available to exploit and generate jobs, enough jobs to put bread on every Mexican table.

Illegal immigrants in the United States have an important role in the nation’s large economy. According to the Urban Institute, immigrants constitute 34% of the labor force in the domestic sphere, 23% in agriculture and fishing, 21% in assembly operations or machinery, and 18% in services. Immigrants contribute greatly to the success of foreign countries’ economy, although the economy of the immigrant‘s country is affected by the hard working immigrant that left. The USA Today could not be more accurate when on July of 2001 it stated, “USA just wouldn’t work without immigrant labor.”

Former U.S. President George W. Bush also had his opinion on immigration. Bush said, “Immigration is not a problem that needs to be resolved. It is a signal of a secure and successful nation… Foreigners should be welcomed, without prejudice and resentment, but with appreciation and courtesy.”

I want to be a part of Mexico’s economic transformation. I want other countries to see the potential filled in Mexico’s citizens. Many Mexicans have a strong desire to work hard for the wellbeing of their family. Hiking through deserts and working long hours for a poor salary in a foreign land demonstrates the immigrants’ determination and willingness to build a better future for their children.

My goal to change Mexico will certainly be difficult to obtain, but the passion and love I have for Mexico will get me to where I desire to be. A student’s story might be similar to mine, or their expectations might be higher, it does not matter. If somebody is determined to fight for his or her dream, the process will not be tedious, but exciting.

Since UTEP sits right at the border between Mexico and the United States, it is no wonder that it draws its students from both sides of the border.  Oscar Chavez, a computer science major, lives close to campus yet frequently travels across the Rio Grande to visit family.

“As I lifelong El Pasoan with strong ties to Juarez, the only thing that makes me feel I am visiting a foreign country when going to my grandmother’s house in Juarez is the waiting time at the bridges,” Chavez said. “Even though the day-to-day violence was enough of a deterrent from visiting my family often, the waiting lines only add to the problem of trying to get to and from Juarez in an efficient manner.”

Though commuters might feel otherwise, the Customs and Border Protection agency believe properly checking every vehicle entering the country is essential to maintaining the nation’s security.

Officer Ruben Jauregui, a Public Affairs spokesperson for the Customs and Border Protection, referred to the bridge waits as an “unfortunate circumstance”, yet feels nothing is more important than keeping our country safe from outside threats.

“Since 9/11, our department has increased our vigilance along the borders, and thorough car screenings is only one of the many steps that we have taken to prevent not only another terrorist attack, but to inhibit illegal drugs from entering the country.”

Jauregui stated that unlike other locations along the US-Mexico border, commuters in our area actually have a choice as to which port of entry is most suitable for them.

“In San Diego for example, there is only one port of entry with 24 lanes, and everyone must enter through this port even if it diverges them from their destination.  In our metro area, we have 3 major international bridges spaced out across the city, allowing drivers to ultimately decide which is most suitable for them.”

Jauregui added that the recent increase in violence in Juarez has not altered the Customs and Border Protection agency’s operations, and he also has advice for UTEP students who travel frequently to Cd. Juarez.

“I would suggest that by comparing traffic on the bridges at different times of the day and week, students can plan ahead and make their frequent commutes less stressful than they already are.”

“The Fed is the single most pervasive problem affecting every American, every age, race, and every socioeconomic status in the same way. It burdens us with tyrannical excesses of a small, elite class of people who view themselves as superior and intend to rule rather than serve,” said Matt Sistrunk, organizer of the group protesting in front of the El Paso branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Sistrunk, a West Point graduate and former Army Captain with 11 years of service, said he started questioning certain “status quo belief systems” in 1996, and has been active in working to enlighten the masses and to mobilize them to bring America back to the people by restraining government with constitutional rule of law ever since.

Although the Federal Reserve has been around for almost a century, Sistrunk, the other protestors, and those involved with the End the Fed movement do not think the Fed is necessary for economic stability. “That’s a lie. They create the crisis they claim they’re protecting us against. It’s an example of creation-reaction-solution. They create a problem, get a reaction, and install a prepared solution. They create slavery through the control of money supply. The government gives them the power to counterfeit money, something that if you and me did, we would go to jail.” The sentiment that the Federal Reserve has an ulterior agenda seems to be a unifying concern for members of the “End the Fed” movement. The introduction to a magazine posted on endthefed.us as educational material to be redistributed by group members says that “the Federal Reserve Bank and its owners are bringing to a conclusion the planned implosion of the financial economy of the United States.”

Despite all of the provocative language, Saturday’s protest was very peaceful. Federal Reserve security commended End the Fed’s orderliness and cooperation. “Oh yeah, the leader, he’s really good at keeping everything calm and in order.”

“This is completely peaceful,” iterated Sistrunk, “We want to achieve heightened awareness. We want to mobilize action. We want to equip people with the informational tools needed to affect their spheres of influence.”

End the Fed wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, but they think it will take several steps to get there, starting with an audit of the Federal Reserve’s records. “That’s the first step, auditing the fed. That falls under HR1207 which currently has [55] cosponsors. This audit will give a detailed look at the Fed, and it will uncover all of their secrets. Americans will no longer tolerate the Fed’s presence. The Fed is absolutely criminal.”

Besides their nationally based goals, the El Paso Campaign for Liberty Meetup Group has some plans locally as well. “We want to build a political machine made of people who support the constitution. We don’t want to fall into the typical paradigm of divisive politics,” Sistrunk said enthusiastically “We want anyone who loves our constitution. We’re looking into electing a few guys into city council and maybe a sheriff in 3 and a half years.”

Out of the six candidates that are running for Mayor of El Paso, four attended and laid out some of their proposals on how to make the city progress and prosper over the next four years.

Among the attendees were incumbent Mayor John F. Cook; Gus Haddad, a local businessman; Carlos Rivera, a former farm-worker and Air Force veteran; and Lee Mendez, a UTEP student and Navy veteran.

Each candidate did a good job presenting themselves to the UTEP students and to those that live in the surrounding community who took the time to attend. With that said, none of the candidates did enough to completely separate themselves from their opponents.

The big question going into this race is not whether one of Cook’s opponents will be able to beat him outright, but whether or not any of his opponents can force a run-off. A run-off occurs when none of the candidates can garner more than 50% of the votes, which then leads to another election where only the top two candidates compete.

The latest polls have shown Cook is close to that 50% mark that he hopes to achieve, yet at least one-third of El Pasoans remain undecided.

To those who might believe that a run-off is just delaying an inevitable Cook re-election, recent history proves otherwise.

Cook himself benefited from a run-off back in 2005, when then-Mayor Joe Wardy received the most votes but did not clear the 50% “safety line”, allowing Cook (as 2nd-highest vote-getter) to remain in the race. The one-on-one matchup and extra time to campaign before the run-off election proved to be more valuable to Cook than to the incumbent, as Cook came out on top after the final votes were counted.

With all this in mind, Cook, Haddad, Rivera, and Mendez took the stage at the Cinema on Monday, and the following is an assessment of their performances.

John F. Cook

Cons: Cook’s campaign organization at the event was very poor. While the other candidates had supporters present and shook hands with whoever approached them, Cook had no posters up (if he did, I did not see them) and did not spend as much time in the lobby as his opponents did. Also, while all the candidates criticized the status quo as being inefficient and out-of-touch with voters, Cook did very little in regards to refuting these claims, something he must do in the coming weeks so as to not be viewed as complacent.

Gus Haddad

Pros: Out of all the candidates present, he came off as the most “people-friendly”. While two other candidates also shook hands with the attendees in and around the Cinema, Haddad was the most engaging, making the majority of those with whom he met feel as if they held a true stake in this election. When on stage, he also made it clear that he played a key role in most of the initiatives that Cook was taking credit for, such as the 2000 Quality of Life issue.

Cons: The most controversial question of the day was the one concerning drug legalization, and in an auditorium full of students who made it evident through cheers and jeers (according to the direction that the discussion was headed) that they smoked marijuana, Haddad did not give a concrete yes or no as to whether he supported the idea. He is currently in second place behind Cook in most polls, and at some point, Haddad will have to answer tough questions such as this one and show that his views will not be swayed by a boisterous audience if he wishes to push Cook to the limit.

Carlos Rivera

Pros: The most energetic of the candidates, he constantly involved the audience when he was at the podium through questions which asked for feedback through a show of hands. He promised to give everyone in El Paso “a seat at the table”, making the city government more easy-to reach.

Cons: At times, it appeared that Rivera and Mendez were saying the exact same thing. In fact, at one point, both candidates stated that “the culture must change” at the city government, seemingly word-for-word of what the other candidate stated. If Rivera is to change his current poll fortunes, he must show that he and his ideas are fundamentally unique from the rest of the field.

Lee Mendez

Pros: The most eloquent speaker, and by far the most quotable. He gave one-liners like “We cannot ask the poor to subsidize the poor”, and “the fruits of NAFTA come at a price.” Though the other candidates are graduates of UTEP, Mendez had the advantage of being the only one currently enrolled at the school, thus sharing a noteworthy link with most of those in attendance.

Cons: The least politically experienced, Mendez does not have a record to fall back on. This made it critical for Mendez to fully outline his plans while in office, and while he said many things that made sense, the substance behind those ideas was not there. Mendez spoke of keeping the city’s intellectual property in El Paso, but he did not outline how exactly he would facilitate this. A detailed plan of his ideas would be advantageous to Mendez if he hopes to not be seen as just rhetoric.

When Lee Mendez begins talking about the issues concerning him most, his youth fades into a stern look of confidence and assurance in knowing the platform he pursues. The “Three I’s” are the focus of his campaign, those being Industry, Infrastructure, and Innovation. When speaking of El Paso, Mendez strongly asserts that industry is a leg of the stool El Paso must gain once again in order to replace low-wage service jobs within the city by bringing industry back into the larger picture. “After NAFTA, many textiles were lost to Juarez and Mexico; yet, the city never renewed the industry sector with other higher-paying skilled job.” Mendez states that he is determined to bring high paying companies to El Paso to offer the strengths we can offer as a city.

Infrastructure is another issue that Lee wants to tackle; one that has been brought into a large focus in recent months after the Smart Bus Route along Oregon was introduced. He points to the fact that there has been a lack of foresight when it comes to city planning and development. “New York and Chicago are big cities because they planned their development in ways that allowed them to become big cities. El Paso’s quick-buck mentality is what led to inefficient government costs. The 2006 storm water disaster is a clear example.”

As for innovation, Lee Mendez describes a certain missing link between the city government of El Paso and the University of Texas at El Paso. Recently, talks have come into light about the construction of a new international bridge along the border, the problem he notes is that the lack of a firm network between UTEP and El Paso has not allowed for collaboration for the project and instead has been outsourced to a company outside El Paso to possibly construct the bridge. “This can be a great experience for engineers and students from UTEP to work and gain experience, but there isn’t the cooperation between the city and the university we need.”

When it comes to Lee Mendez’s age, it might be the most repeated attack on his capabilities as mayor of El Paso. However, when people say he still doesn’t have his bachelor’s degree Lee calmly responds, “I haven’t finished my degree yet, but I am not uneducated.” He cites his Navy enrollment as a strong showcase for his leadership abilities and his knowledge and familiarity with the working class El Pasoan. In fact, Mendez says his age is an actual advantage! Noting the large young population in El Paso, mostly mid-20s to mid-30s, he feels his candidacy carries a unique and young perspective on how we can manage this city to foster the talents and innovation its young residents can offer.

On top of his 3 I’s platform, Lee feels that the mayor of a city musts be the strongest and loudest spokesperson for their city. “With our unique population, I’d like to get on the road to command attention from companies and to show them the people we have in our city.” Job with high wages and benefits are some of the features he would like to see come to El Paso sooner rather than later.

In discussing UTEP Tier1 status, Lee emphasizes that although Austin and El Paso emulate different cultures, it should not be a reason to be ostracized from the decisions that affect us as a city and a region. “UTEP has the largest graduation rate for Hispanics, the UT system receives a lot of money for that accomplishment; yet, we don’t see much of that money being spent in West Texas. Instead, it is used and kept towards East Texas, and we never see the amount of money we bring in as UTEP.”

Lee Mendez shows great enthusiasm when it comes to the possibilities that surround the large acreage that will be left at the ASARCO site for future use. “El Paso has a great natural resource—the Sun! I know it might seem like a crazy idea, but those crazy ideas are the ones that can improve our city substantially.”

“We should focus on using the power that is available to city government to change the way we perceive our city; green industry among other things are ways of doing that. Despite the outcome of the election, the youth of the city must keep up the momentum that has been building. Just because you’re young does not mean you cannot do certain things. Take initiative and pursue what you want!”

When it comes to taking action, Lee Mendez certainly is taking that step in his career and life. It’s important to note that when most mayors receive funding through dinners and donations, Lee has bootstrapped his own venture, using bake sales and other creative fundraising activities to fund his campaign personally.

The Ri wishes this young UTEP student the best of luck!

Foremost, the fence is not an ill-willed attack deliberately aimed at any country’s political abilities—or lack thereof—as a number of immigrants in America, legal and illegal, have been known to believe. The scale of the immigration problem at hand demands that people take the issue with a more objective mentality. The proposition of tearing down the wall, for instance, is a dangerous question to ponder. There wouldn’t be the slightest benefit to anybody in demolishing the fence.

As appalled as some might feel by the sight of the fence, the fact is this: it stands, eleven feet tall and 2.7 billion dollars later. Under the economic situation in the US at present, it seems counter-productive for citizens to advocate such idealistic suggestions after all of the taxpayer money that has gone into the effort. When dealt with strictly as an investment, the borderland is better off letting the fence stand where it is to provide as best a service as it can, rather than leaving no form of resistance in its stead.

A better-grounded argument adopted by those opposing “the wall” is that the physical structure itself will solve no more problems than its predecessor. This is true. Though any previous attempts at an US/Mexico barrier were primitive by contrast, it is a valid point to argue that no structure erected from the ground will of its own accord stop the problem we face.

However, the fence is instrumental to the work of border patrol agents across the country. American citizens expect the government to provide law enforcement officers with proper vehicles and equipment to protect their children from criminals when they are out and about on the streets; yet these same people are quick to chastise the fence-supporters for essentially doing the same for the border patrol. To border patrol officers, this much needed assistance couldn’t have come any sooner, and it might even encourage the overwhelming number of unemployed citizens in the US to pursue the job of protecting the border. With over eleven thousand positions available as of January of this year, a government secured job like this should seem very appealing to struggling Americans living in the borderland. It is with the strategic allocation of skilled officers and the stage-lit fence that we should be able to secure our borders more effectively.

The United States and Mexico currently find themselves dealing with some growing sociopolitical demons of their own kind; the nature of their problems and course of action sustained by each country varies between the two, yet there are few who will deny the unifying bind they share: a crisis which plagues their people and system. It is under these circumstances that Americans should come to accept that the fence could be part of the solution. President Obama has shown no formal disagreement with the fence, so perhaps it’s wiser to seek an immigration reform from him than to expect a bulldozer charging down the Rio Grande.

The talk of this [January 13, 2009] week in El Paso is the city council resolution that failed to pass after being vetoed by Mayor John Cook, and which was later re-phrased and re-voted based on a recommendation from U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes. The controversy was sparked by a simple sentence at the end of the original resolution, intended to condemn the violence in Juarez, inviting a sincere and open debate on reforming current drug policy throughout the nation – particularly legalizing certain drugs.

Though the provision was struck down, Beto O’Rourke, original proponent of including the invitation to debate in the resolution, pointed out that it is “still important to have the type of conversations that will truly address the drug issues along the border, even if they make the established leadership uncomfortable.”

O’Rourke’s resolution seemed to suggest that the astonishing levels of violence registered in Juarez in the last year or so could be resolved or reduced through the legalization of drugs in the United States. Why was this so inflammatory to Congressman Reyes? If anything, O’Rourke’s resolution was, in my opinion, a glimplse of politics that actually make sense in the times that we are living.

Dating back to the turn of the twentieth century, US drug policy has been based on fear and moralistic sensibilites towards addictive substances. The prohibition of marijuana, for example, began in the 1930s as a reaction to marijuana use among Mexicans. The drug was seen as a source of deviant behavior, and several states began to tax it or even forbid it completely. The media published sensationalist accounts of violent crimes being committed under the influence of marijuana (many times exaggerated), and marijuana acquired the negative reputation that it continues to have today in mainstream politics. In his warning letter against passing the resolution, Congressman Reyes said that “its passage would be counterproductive to our efforts to enact an ambitious legislative agenda at the federal level.”

Nevertheless, marijuana use is today more widespread than ever, crossing barriers of gender, age and ethnicity. The World Drug Report 2008 calls marijuana “the most commonly used drug in the world.” Consumption prevalence in the US has remained more or less the same in the last couple of decades, with about 10% of the population consuming it on a regular basis since the 1980s. The rate among high school students has been significantly higher, currently about 30%. Some sources have concluded that about 42% of the living US population has tried marijuana.

The consequences of banning drugs in an absolute, irrational manner have numberless ramifications. The US has already experienced once what mindless prohibition of an addictive substance can do. The prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the 1930s did little to stop either, and furthermore created an illegal market for the product, run by violent organizations that spread a whole other plethora of socially harmful criminal phenomena like violent gang wars, kidnappings and corruption of law enforcement and political officials. Does any of this sound familiar? Attempting to “un-invent” drugs, or in this case any source of pleasure, does not work. Psychoactive substances have been around for thousands of years, embedded one way or another in the daily lives and cultural practices of peoples. The increased availability of them has not changed this.

While current drug policies have done little to hinder drug production, trafficking and consumption in the US, they have disproportionately impacted the lives of thousands of people. Incarceration rates for African Americans and Hispanics are significantly higher than for whites. The ACLU reports that currently, about a third of all black men in productive age are in prisons, leading scholars to conclude that the criminal justice system of the states contains a racial bias, very often stemming from drug policies and related sentencing. In the same way that marijuana was identified with Mexicans and deviant behavior, possession crack cocaine (the form of the drug most used by blacks and Hispanics) is currently punished far more severely than possession of powder cocaine (more commonly consumed by whites). The way they stand, drug policies today are serving institutional racism and imposing the views of the elite on some substances upon minorities.

In 2000, estimates suggest that Americans were spending about $70 billion in illegal drugs per year, about 17% of the world’s consumption according to UN estimates. As it is, the market for drugs is cartel-dominated, meaning that drug trafficking organizations name their prices as competition is based not on market forces but on violent confrontation. In this sense, keeping drugs illegal actually favors drug traffickers, as they are able to keep the bulk of their monstrous revenue, spending money in more illegal enterprises and a lavish lifestyle. Would it not be fairer for that revenue to be taxed (maybe even use the tax revenue in drug education programs) and for the business to be open to a market where competition is just and regulated?

Another problem with the fear-based approach to drugs is the fact that the drugs produced and consumed are virtually impossible to monitor. The government cannot realistically expect to regulate the safety of drugs sold to people, meaning that consumers are continuously at risk. Were drugs to be legalized, the government could intervene to regulate the dosing and quality of drugs being sold.

Perpetuating a blindly prohibitive approach to drugs also hinders our ability to understand and take advantage of benefits they may have. The medicinal uses of marijuana, for example, are already recognized in some states as valuable in the treatment of asthma, diabetes, diseases causing chronic pain, glaucoma, AIDS, etc. This, however, has created a problem for these states, as possession of certain amounts is federally prohibited, even if the state allows it and recognizes the patient as a legitimate user.

Another benefit that marijuana has and federal drug policy has incapacitated us to take advantage of is the use of hemp fiber. Hemp is a variety of cannabis sativa whose leaves are unfit for consumption as a drug, since the concentration of THC is very low. What hemp does provide, however, is a very resistent, eco-friendly and cheap-to-produce fiber. Hemp seeds and hemp seed oil also have multiple uses in food production. Because of its contempt for anything remotely related to drugs, all but a few states ban the production of industrial hemp and until 2002 the DEA had restrictions on imports. Because of that, the US must spend millions of dollars in imports of hemp products. Plants that yield illegal substances could have other benefits and uses, but the stigma attached to them impairs us from tapping into those in a responsible manner.

At a time like this a conscious, open debate on drug policy is exactly what the US needs. It is simply inadmissible to shut down those voices who are trying to bring about change for the better. We need more politicians who are willing to challenge the intransigent political establishment, who will finally usher in policies that are educated and which exalt freedom, not fear.

This blog was originally posted on thecommunistson. The RI has no affiliation with thecommunistson.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed by Former President George Bush, granted the Secretary of Homeland Security to “take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States…”

Masked under the cover of national defense, the border wall legislation, aided by the Real ID Act of 2005, approves of the Secretary’s waivers of dozens of federal and state statutes; ignoring those that address various economic, ecological, and cultural concerns and preservations. Among these statutes are those defended by the California Coastal Commission, including the Commission Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. In regional affairs, the border wall through El Paso has sliced through the sacred ceremonial lands of the Ysleta Pueblo del Sur Tribe and the wetlands of the Rio Bosque Park.

In a time of heightened national security alert, ever growing apprehension over illegal immigration, and the increased nervous anxiety over drugs and arms trafficking, there is no doubt that a solution is called for to effectively seal our borders. In addition, it is accurate to say a war is violently raging on only a couple hundred yards away from United States soil. With that said, securing American borders should not come in the tune of a billion dollar (plus) speed bump.

The argued need for the border wall mostly stemmed from the consequences of a failed American immigration policy and a failed “war on drugs.” Rather than aiding the states and local Border Patrol agencies (the two authorities most informed in how to tackle our border crisis) with increased financial and logistical support, the federal government has chosen to ignore local and state representatives and further empower themselves instead. What happened to small government? The border wall act is reminiscent of other legislation in the name of national security and less individual and state liberties: the USA Patriot Act. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

A solution for illegal immigration and trafficking is needed, but the border wall is nothing but a mean for higher ends in Washington to sleep at night. While the wall is a tangible form of action for them to refer to, the wall does not lower the demand for drugs, arms, or the hopes for a better life. There will always be a taller ladder, a deeper hole, or an even bigger stick of dynamite. The aforementioned is exemplified in San Diego, where in 2007, border apprehensions among its triple-fenced wall increased by 7%, despite a national drop of apprehensions to 20%. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security should refer to proven border defense strategies, such as Operation Hold the Line In 1994. The operation, involving the close, strategic positioning of border patrol agents along the El Paso borders, resulted in a nearly 70% drop of border apprehensions. May it be known that the operation was headed by an avid opponent of the border wall, then El Paso Sector Chief Border Patrol Agent, now Congressman, Silvestre Reyes.

As Obama battles not only an economic recession, but a recession of worldwide social support, he and his administration must open their minds and take on the challenges of our borders in an intuitive and effective manner. Blockading the country from the rest of world, all while piling onto our trillion (plus) debt is not the answer.

Those who have opposed the wall, specifically those representing a common regional view, should be applauded. Among the border wall opponents are Congressman Silvestre Reyes, Texas State Senator Eliot Shapleigh, Texas State Representative Norma Chavez, El Paso Mayor John Cook, El Paso County Judge Briones, El Paso County Attorney José Rodriguez, the Texas Border Coalition, and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.

We must tear down the wall and strengthen our relationship with our partners in Latin America. We must secure our borders through increased support and funding of the Border Patrol, their agents, and their technology. After all, we must remember that even if the border wall does remain standing, it will continue having no effect without someone patrolling and maintaining it. Finally, we must reform an immigration policy that has left hard working humans desperate for their opportunity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Room 321 was filled, tightly packed with students, faculty, and staff waiting for the College of Business’ latest guest—Former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson.

Before the formal forum started, UTEP students and faculty were able to sit and listen to Mr. Paulson, the man who weeks prior was at the head of a $700 billion bailout for the financial system of America.

The opportunity to listen to Mr. Paulson came in the wake of our 43rd President of eight years leaving office. Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama, having all cabinet positions emptied and filled, allotted the former Treasury Secretary a little “off-time.”

It would be an understatement to say that Mr. Paulson was less anxious than he was months ago, kept under political scrutiny and pressure to fix the ailing economy. He humorously noted that he was forced to postpone his last scheduled visit in November for “other matters,” a detour that led the Treasury Secretary to handle affairs dealing with billions of dollars and company giants such as AIG, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Fortunately, the UTEP College of Business was allowed the privilege of listening to a few words in an exclusive forum featuring the Former Treasurer.

The forum began with a brief introduction by the College of Business Dean, Dr. Nachtmann, and was followed by Mr. Paulson speaking specifically to the students in the room about his personal ideas and encouragements to young businessmen.

His message to students was simple, one that showed Mr. Paulson’s humility as a person and businessman, “If you don’t care about the people around you, you won’t get far.” It surprised me to hear such a meek thought and philosophy coming from a daunting-looking investment banker; whose resume also includes the CEO position at Goldman Sachs. It was a message that many in the American public may miss when continually exposed to the negative and “corrupt” forces behind large companies; it was a fresh idea that kept the assembly of students intrigued and curious.

Mr. Paulson studied English at Dartmouth College and afterwards went to Harvard to study his MBA, and through much use of his rhetoric and philosophy climbed onto the position of CEO at Goldman Sachs, one company that has shown incredible resilience to an otherwise disastrous climate of an economy.

The issues began to turn into the economic challenges America faces. Questions from the gathering arose, reaching topics from the local credit crunch, to the questionable Constitutionality of the federal bailouts, and even the China currency and its influences on America’s economy. It may come as a surprise to some that Paulson was hesitant, if not against, the auto industry bailout.

Economics Dean Dr. Timothy Roth introduced a Constitutional argument against the auto industry bailouts. Roth’s theory holds that the Constitution of the United States only provides monetary assistance (bailouts) to financial institutions, and believes that the auto industry receiving any money is both morally and constitutionally wrong. After Roth introduced his argument, Mr. Paulson admired the issue and admitted the conflict was a central part in coming to a decision in Washington.

At one point Mr. Paulson’s words to the crowd sounded to take form of a motif we have all heard and lived—“Embrace change.” This piece of wisdom came into light as the group’s questions veered more into how America would get itself out of the economic slump we currently find ourselves in. The Treasurer also took the phrase as a way of encouraging the youth in the room not to fear the uncertain things we face, and to continually accept change as we take it in stride and use it to motivate us and our dreams, either as individual entrepreneurs or corporate leaders.

Listening to Mr. Paulson’s words of advice for students, local entrepreneurs, and teachers brought kinder feelings of optimism and motivation; words that are a welcomed variation to the current feelings of uncertainty and struggle towards the ever growing phenomenon of economics.