Transcript of the above video: 

Wow, what does the title of this video have to do anything with US Immigration? Why are we talking about General George S Patton? Well, I've been practicing US Immigration Law for roughly the better part of two decades frankly. I have been out here in Thailand going on 17 years doing that; that's what I have been doing since the beginning. We have branched out into other things as time has gone on but I have been doing that for a long time. It's very, very hard to talk about US Immigration Law at this point with a straight face especially where you know how difficult it is to bring someone into the United States legally from out here in Thailand, while at the same time back in the USA, the Southern Border just appears to be wide open and it's a real problem; it's causing a serious crisis that I think is going to be a crisis for the nation. I think it's going to be a humanitarian crisis generally. I'm not saying these migrants, and let's be clear, they are illegal aliens per American Law, per the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, they are. They are illegal aliens. That said, I don't hold anything against these folks. At the end of the day yes America was founded by Immigrants. That said, to quote the great Dennis Miller: "Sign the guest book on the way in the door." At the end of the day, that is kind of a good idea. There was a time when we did have something in place that staunched the inflow of illegal folks coming into the United States, and it is worth noting, the Western Roman Empire fell because of these exact kind of circumstances. It wasn't an invasion; it was just being overrun by folks that weren't part of their polity, weren't part of their political system, weren't part of their country at the end of the day and it eroded down their national identity to the point where they just ceased to exist. Now the Eastern Empire went on for quite a ways longer. In fact it lasted until roughly about a few decades before Columbus discovered America. But that said, at the end of the day that is what brought down the Western Empire, so it's something you want to keep a close eye on; it's why we have Immigration Laws to begin with.

That said, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from ZeroHedge, that is zerohedge.com, the article is titled: DHS Admits Border Has Been Open to Criminals and Terrorists. Quoting directly: "The Department of Homeland Security, headed by the impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, recently proposed a new rule. In a statement announcing the rule, DHS unwittingly revealed that it has not been doing background checks on these millions of illegal immigrants in order to immediately deport those with criminal records of terrorism ties. Instead, they have been leaving that determination until the asylum hearing which occurs many years down the road." And again, if these people even show up to it too, that's another thing to bear in mind. You know, a good friend of mine and a mentor of mine said during the Trump Administration - and he hated Trump like cancer - he said "you know, even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while". When it came to the issue of asylees or proposed asylees coming into the United States, the policy then was you have got to wait outside the United States before we adjudicate that and let you in. In my opinion, that was a pretty good, from a policy standpoint, that was a pretty good stance for exactly this reason, so you don't have a bunch of people waiting around for an asylum hearing that may have backgrounds that are criminal. Quoting further: "In the meantime, they remain in the US awaiting the hearing," yeah and can get work authorization during that time period. Even adjudicated deportees can maintain work authorization in the United States, which I don't even understand why that's possible. What policy reason is there behind that? 

Which brings us back to why the title of the video? Why are we talking about Patton. Well, let me get into this. I thought of making this after reading an excerpt from True West Magazine, that's truewestmagazine.com, under the heading: The Great Raid - George Patton gained his spurs in a Mexican gunfight. Let's get some background here. You have got to understand, prior to the current system - if you want to even call it that anymore - that was put in place with the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, came around sometime around about the Eisenhower Administration. Prior to that, effectively the Army was the one who dealt with the border and quite honestly, I love the saying: "In the absence of light, darkness prevails." Well, "In the absence of law enforcement, perhaps just enforcement of our national sovereignty should prevail." And the best people, the people that have been doing that since day one, since Valley Forge has been the United States Army, okay? And at one time they were down along the Mexican Border and quoting directly and again this is from truewestmagazine.com: "May 1916. Lieutenant George Patton led a group of 10 soldiers on a raid of a Mexican ranch, looking for Pancho Villa aide Julio Cardenas. It was the first attack using motorized vehicles - and it was a success. Patton gunned the Mexican leader down with a pearl handled Colt .45 pistol." It is my understanding that pistol was ivory handled? If I recall from the Patton film - and I read a couple of biographies on Patton over the years - he had ivory handled pistols. When a reporter asked him if he had a pearl handled pistol, I believe he said: "Only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl-handled pistol." I believe those were his words. Quoting further: "Two other Villistas were also killed. Pattern transported the bodies about 90 miles to the Headquarters of General John Pershing." Yeah, Pershing, the leader of the American expeditionary force in the First World War, that Pershing. This was the priority that the America of that time place upon security of the Southern border. They had the army down there to do it. Quoting further: "The young Lieutenant had actually disobeyed orders in attacking the ranch, but Pershing ignored that and soon gave him a promotion." Yeah, there was a lot of that from Patton later on and notably where they said it was a success, it was the first, quoting again: "It was the first attack using motorized vehicles and it was a success." Yeah, that would also be a hallmark of Patton down the road in a few more events that would transpire later. 

That being said, it's worth noting now because honestly trying to do legal analysis of US Immigration Law as it pertains to an open border and I get it, I have a very different perspective on this. I know I have colleagues in the United States who feel very differently about Immigration and matters springing from the situation along the border, but if I may say so as politely and as respectfully as I can, at the end of the day there may be benefits to in terms of employment and things for folks working in the United States trying to assist illegal aliens in maintaining their status therein. So perhaps, and again reasonable people can disagree on all of these things, but perhaps those folks’ opinion is a little skewed by certain financial incentives. Who was it, Charlie Munger, who said: “you show me the incentive, I will show you the outcome.” So, leave that aside, my point is I don't think it's unreasonable at this point to start wondering why we have American military presence outside of the United States in many places where I think the average American would say "where is that?" And we don't have any kind of presence similar to that along our border and especially where it appears to me that the Immigration apparatus, the Immigration bureaucracy headquartered in Washington, is not particularly interested in allowing or facilitating US Customs and Border protection, USCBP. I believe I watched a Committee Hearing in Congress where they were talking to the head of that organization and they asked if he had even talked to the president and he said he hadn't. So, the question raised is in the absence of USCBP doing their job, what prevails? Is it just going to be chaos along the border? Well if it is, then my argument would be hey it's seriously time to be asking the question: "Do we need the US Army along our Southern Border?"