The New York Times notes problems on Mexico’s southern border. The photograph below isn’t of Mexicans invading across the Rio Grande, but Guatamelans invading Mexico:

TAPACHULA, Mexico, June 11 — Quiet as it is kept in political circles, Mexico, so much the focus of the United States’ immigration debate, has its own set of immigration problems. And as elected officials from President Vicente Fox on down denounce Washington’s plans to deploy troops and build more walls along the United States border, Mexico has begun a re-examination of its own policies and prejudices.

Here at Mexico’s own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want. And hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from nearly two dozen other countries, including China, Ecuador, Cuba and Somalia, pass through on their way to the United States.[Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border By GINGER THOMPSON, New York Times, June 18, 2006]

Of course, this is old news to Vdare.com readers; in December, 2001, we mentioned Fox’s Plan Frontera Sur, and asked if “President Fox would provide his friend Jorge Bush with a copy, since a Plan Frontera Sur is what our Presidente chiefly lacks.”

The NYT story includes a reference to a Honduran who’s risking his life to get back to Miami, because he’s “separated” from his wife and child after being deported repeatedly.

Don’t know why he’s “separated” from them; the family could be reunified with no problem if his wife and child would get on an airplane to Honduras. A one-way ticket for the two of them should be about two hundred dollars.

The hits just keep on coming from Vaticrats taking up space in America. The latest is the Sonoma child-abusing priest who was given a substantial head start from Bishop Daniel Walsh to escape U.S. justice [Priest flees after abuse report, Associated Press, 6/23/06].

SAN FRANCISCO - The Roman Catholic bishop of Santa Rosa failed to immediately report an admission of child abuse by a priest who has since left the country, authorities said Thursday.

The Rev. Xavier Ochoa was suspended April 28 after admitting an incident of sexual abuse with a 12-year-old boy. Bishop Daniel Walsh didn’t notify law enforcement until three days later, giving Ochoa time to flee to Mexico, according to church and law enforcement officials.

The accused was ordained as a Jesuit in Mexico in 1969 and has been a priest in Sonoma County since 1988. His sexual preferences are warped, to say the least.

The boy told sheriff’s deputies he often went to Ochoa’s apartment across the street from St. Francis Solano Church to do chores. Ochoa reportedly offered the boy $100 for a strip tease.

”While the victim was dancing and taking off his clothes, Ochoa sat on the edge of his bed laughing and throwing marshmallows at the victim; and the victim was trying to catch the marshmallows with his mouth,” according to court documents.

There are two other charges against Ochoa of molesting teenaged boys. He is the 17th priest from the diocese accused of sexually abusing children.

Earlier this year, I wrote an article about the lengths to which racial activists like University of Dayton Professor Vernellia Randall will go to get less qualified but racially-correct students into law school. Here’s a short update:

In February, the American Bar Association approved revisions to its accreditation standards. Object: to make diversity more of a requirement than a suggestion in law school admissions.

The committee added, in a feat of bureaucratic redundancy, the word “Non-Discrimination” to the title, making it the standard of “Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity”. Several other changes were made, as the committee attempted to clarify the exquisite difference between non-discrimination and equal opportunity and non-discrimination and diversity.

There was also an attempt to determine who should benefit from these standards, and what exactly law schools should do to maintain them.

This last effort was redoubled earlier this month, when the Commission on Civil Rights initiated a five-hour long debate over the diversity debacle. There are fears that the bar association requires schools to break the law in order to maintain diversity, since the standards require that

a law school shall demonstrate, by concrete action, a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a study body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.

Also up for debate was the issue of whether affirmative action actually helps or hinders those who gain admission through its policies.

From what I read, the discussions turned into chaotic statistical bickering One wonders how much longer there will be any standards left worth revising.

After all, as I quoted diversity advocate Randall saying: “failing is not about intellect in law school.”