Fred Witzell of The TexasFred Blog states in his article ‘It works’: Yuma’s fence, manpower make border nearly impenetrable that the border wall in Yuma is more effective than Democrats and  “faux Conservatives” would like to admit to. He states “When Americans think of a secure border…they see Yuma, Ariz. and the 20-foot high steel curtain separating it from Mexico". Overall I think this article was incredibly biased and I hate to say it but driven by a racial prejudice.

This article obviously appeals to a zealous Republican (white supremacist) audience. The first dead giveaway that the author has homicidal thoughts regarding Mexican immigrants was when he stated “I thought about border jumpers and what should happen to them AT THE BORDER, that being; met with a .50 machinegun placed about every 200 or so yards and how those .50’s needed to be used to repel these invaders, one and all, man, woman and child.” He then goes on to say “I personally don’t give a damn if they DO die in the desert. Desert critters have got to eat too you know.” He clearly thinks that Mexican immigrant’s lives are less valuable.

It’s guys like Witzell that make issues like border control look like a racially motivated joke. This article makes me wonder if the general public is going to stop taking border control seriously and ultimately vote for representatives with more flexible stances on Mexican immigration.  Personally, I think the best solution to this whole dilemma is establishing stronger diplomatic ties with Mexico to facilitate reforms in Mexican government that would both discourage illegal immigration and ideally root out the underlying issues encouraging it.

Gissela SantaCruz writes to her fellow Texans in her article SantaCruz: Texas’ unjust policy hurts American-born children about the injustice of denying children of immigrant parents their right to acquire their birth certificates.  She immediately quotes the pope “We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them unto you,’” she uses this quote to propose that the pope wished for Americans to embrace immigrants. She then states that his message could have been elaborated to defend the rights of American born children with immigrant parents.

She informs her audience that Texas enforces state policy that calls on state registrars to reject matriculas which are a form of identification that is issued in mexico.  Gissela argues that the matriculas are acceptable forms of identification. She states that according to Salvador Ayala Velázquez, spokesperson for the Consulate General of Mexico in Austin, that the matricula has  safety features such as  being made out of a more durable material (than the Texas drivers licence) and has chips that verify a person’s identity.

This article seems to appeal to a Hispanic and or Liberal American audience but its argument doesn’t necessarily condemn any conservative principles, in fact, it reinforces them. Her final statement is that people born here in the U.S. should be treated as American citizens; which is a straight forward concept that even conservative or non-Hispanic (most likely of European  immigrant heritage) Americans cannot disagree with.

Overall I think her article was well written and provided readers with valid information concerning her argument; however, I think her article failed to mention the motives of parents. In my opinion, I think it's a good idea to discourage immigrants (including Europeans) from illegally entering the country and having children as a way to bully their way into buying themselves more time to remain in a country that didn’t approve of their entry.