Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, even though I am opposed to violence unless it is absolutely necessary you can't be serious that militarizing our border with orders to shoot or having landmines wouldn't stop illegal entry.
I didn't say "that militarizing our border with orders to shoot or having landmines wouldn't stop illegal entry"; I said I'm opposed to bombs. Now that you mention it though, I do oppose the use of landmines also. You would seriously put landmines on US soil, potentially killing US citizens? That is completely unacceptable to me. Not only do the bombs & landmines popularly mentioned in this thread pose an imminent danger to our own citizens, they will destroy any wildlife remaining in the park.
Shoot to kill orders? I don't know. I don't know the legal ramifications of that. The big problem with utilizing the military is the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from engaging in civil law enforcement activities. Without some law changes in Congress, I'm not sure the military can legally shoot, bomb, or set landmines (thank goodness).
You are forgetting the cost analysis - the payoff - for the illegal border crossers. For them, it's not just about cash, though I'm sure that's an important factor. There is also the opportunity for a better life (nonviolent immigrants), the chance for promotion from the life you know (both violent & nonviolent immigrants), and the dream of something more/better (both violent & nonviolent immigrants). It's the same reason people deal crack in the ghettos - a slim change for something more, an advancement from a crappy life. Until the risk outweighs the potential payoff, the crossings will continue.
People here advocate death as the highest risk. That may not be a large enough deterrent. People here also seem to forget that the cure is sometimes worse than the disease. Before we start setting up landmines, shooting anyone on sight, or bombing, we need to weigh the risks and understand the ramifications of our choices.
I didn't say "that militarizing our border with orders to shoot or having landmines wouldn't stop illegal entry"; I said I'm opposed to bombs. Now that you mention it though, I do oppose the use of landmines also. You would seriously put landmines on US soil, potentially killing US citizens? That is completely unacceptable to me. Not only do the bombs & landmines popularly mentioned in this thread pose an imminent danger to our own citizens, they will destroy any wildlife remaining in the park.
Shoot to kill orders? I don't know. I don't know the legal ramifications of that. The big problem with utilizing the military is the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from engaging in civil law enforcement activities. Without some law changes in Congress, I'm not sure the military can legally shoot, bomb, or set landmines (thank goodness).
You are forgetting the cost analysis - the payoff - for the illegal border crossers. For them, it's not just about cash, though I'm sure that's an important factor. There is also the opportunity for a better life (nonviolent immigrants), the chance for promotion from the life you know (both violent & nonviolent immigrants), and the dream of something more/better (both violent & nonviolent immigrants). It's the same reason people deal crack in the ghettos - a slim change for something more, an advancement from a crappy life. Until the risk outweighs the potential payoff, the crossings will continue.
People here advocate death as the highest risk. That may not be a large enough deterrent. People here also seem to forget that the cure is sometimes worse than the disease. Before we start setting up landmines, shooting anyone on sight, or bombing, we need to weigh the risks and understand the ramifications of our choices.
Please re-read my post. I didn't say I approve of violence. It should only be used when absolutely necessary. How you twisted the meaning of my words I just don't know.
What you said is that violence (shooting, bombs, etc.) would not stop illegal immigration but you are wrong it would and I just corrected you. That isn't the same as saying I approve of violence. In fact I said quite the opposite.
No need to make excuses for illegal entrants into our country. There is none regardless of how harmless you make it seem. I know too much about this issue to fall for the sob stories.
Keep in mind that the BP and even a military presence on our border would not be able to tell the difference between a leaf blower and a terrorist or a criminal. That is precisely why we need to stop them all.
Please re-read my post. I didn't say I approve of violence. It should only be used when absolutely necessary. How you twisted the meaning of my words I just don't know.
This is ridiculous. I didn't say that you approved of violence. <sigh>
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
What you said is that violence (shooting, bombs, etc.) would not stop illegal immigration but you are wrong it would and I just corrected you. That isn't the same as saying I approve of violence. In fact I said quite the opposite.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I said to Joey2000, "You are mistaken if you believe that bombing the area will prevent illegal border crossing." "you are wrong it would and I just corrected you" - wow, that's condescending! I think what you're trying to say is that given enough violence, which you don't advocate, no one would cross the borders. Agreed. If you create a militarized zone with tanks and guns and shot any moving thing, sure you'd eliminate all life. As you've repeatedly stated, you don't endorse violence unless "absolutely necessary", which is arbitrary, but let's leave that. My entire point is that I do not support bombings or landmines by the US military on US soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
No need to make excuses for illegal entrants into our country. There is none regardless of how harmless you make it seem. I know too much about this issue to fall for the sob stories.
I'm not making excuses for illegal immigrants, but I do understand why they do it. I refuse to put on blinders and only see "our" point of view. I'm no stranger to the issue either, for the record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Keep in mind that the BP and even a military presence on our border would not be able to tell the difference between a leaf blower and a terrorist or a criminal. That is precisely why we need to stop them all.
Well, given your nonviolent slant, in light of the OP's question, I suppose you support a nonviolent military presence, or do you support a violent military presence because it's a last resort?
This is more of a commentary on the Fox News reportage than on anything else. If you do your own math, you will see that the area in question (3,500 acres stretched along 80 miles) is a strip along the border averaging 120 yards wide. Not much more than the right-of-way along interstate highways, also closed to the public. And if the border fence were to be put in place, the amount of land that would be closed to the public (and critical and endangered wildlife) would be a lot more than 3,500 acres.
How come we get so much weeping and wringing of hands about Gulf of Mexico wildlife, but nobody cares about Sonora Desert wildlife? By the way, the whole idea of the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge is to keep people from stomping around in wildlife habitat, isn't it? Every National Wildlife Refuge has large areas that are closed to the public, which are strictly controlled, with significant penalties for violators. Where's the outrage about those sections of New Jersey and Illinois being ""closed to the public"?
In fact, one practical alternative would be for the US government to use public designate it as a national wildlife refuge, close it all to the public, and use existing regulations to enforce it. And that would make perfect sense in terms of wildlife protection, because virtually the e domain to take possession of all land within 100 yards of the border,ntire border is critical habitat, from the Tijuana River to Boca Chica.
One problem with your "praticle alternative" most of the land along the US-Mexico border is American owned by private ranching families...What is a 100 yard strip of land going to do?
One problem with your "praticle alternative" most of the land along the US-Mexico border is American owned by private ranching families...What is a 100 yard strip of land going to do?
Provide some land for bombing, of course. Seriously though, excellent point.
This is ridiculous. I didn't say that you approved of violence. <sigh>
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I said to Joey2000, "You are mistaken if you believe that bombing the area will prevent illegal border crossing." "you are wrong it would and I just corrected you" - wow, that's condescending! I think what you're trying to say is that given enough violence, which you don't advocate, no one would cross the borders. Agreed. If you create a militarized zone with tanks and guns and shot any moving thing, sure you'd eliminate all life. As you've repeatedly stated, you don't endorse violence unless "absolutely necessary", which is arbitrary, but let's leave that. My entire point is that I do not support bombings or landmines by the US military on US soil.
I'm not making excuses for illegal immigrants, but I do understand why they do it. I refuse to put on blinders and only see "our" point of view. I'm no stranger to the issue either, for the record.
Well, given your nonviolent slant, in light of the OP's question, I suppose you support a nonviolent military presence, or do you support a violent military presence because it's a last resort?
Your very own words:
"I can't believe no one has commented about this! You are mistaken if you believe that bombing the area will prevent illegal border crossing".
"Seriously?!?!?! Why do you thinking bombing will change anything??? It won't stop illegal border crossings".
"Now that you mention it though, I do oppose the use of landmines also. You would seriously put landmines on US soil, potentially killing US citizens"?
I never said that "I" would put landmines on the border or that I advocated violence and in fact I said only in extreme circumstances should we use violence so why did you accuse me of the above and now you are denying it? What I said is that it would deter illegal entry just like bombs and an armed military with orders to shoot but I don't advocate it.
I don't try to understand law breakers. I just expect them to be held accountable.
As for the military it doesn't make sense to send them down to the border unarmed. It is for their own protection if nothing else. If the military were armed and on our border that alone would be a deterrant and nary a shot would have to be fired most likely. Ever heard of the term "stop or I'll shoot"? It is a warning first. If someone continues on anyway they are pretty stupid not to heed the warning.
"I can't believe no one has commented about this! You are mistaken if you believe that bombing the area will prevent illegal border crossing".
"Seriously?!?!?! Why do you thinking bombing will change anything??? It won't stop illegal border crossings".
"Now that you mention it though, I do oppose the use of landmines also. You would seriously put landmines on US soil, potentially killing US citizens"?
I never said that "I" would put landmines on the border or that I advocated violence and in fact I said only in extreme circumstances should we use violence so why did you accuse me of the above and now you are denying it? What I said is that it would deter illegal entry just like bombs and an armed military with orders to shoot but I don't advocate it.
Ok, deep breath.
First, you inferred that above quotes = "violence (shooting, bombs, etc.) would not stop illegal immigration but you are wrong it would and I just corrected you." I specifically named bombing and landmines and said, "Shoot to kill orders? I don't know. I don't know the legal ramifications of that." I didn't say I was specifically opposed (though that's another debate). We are playing semantics games and it's tiring.
Second, I apologize for saying "You". Clearly you don't advocate landmines. You brought it up landmines so in my response I said "You". This evidently offended you; I apologize. Can we please move on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
I don't try to understand law breakers. I just expect them to be held accountable.
If you don't try to understand what motivates a person, how do you expect to stop them? This applies to all criminals. I like to understand people; it helps when dealing with them. Obviously you disagree, but that's another topic altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
As for the military it doesn't make sense to send them down to the border unarmed. It is for their own protection if nothing else. If the military were armed and on our border that alone would be a deterrant and nary a shot would have to be fired most likely. Ever heard of the term "stop or I'll shoot"? It is a warning first. If someone continues on anyway they are pretty stupid not to heed the warning.
You say you don't advocate violence, but you support armed forces shooting armed & unarmed people illegally crossing the border. That seems inconsistent. I suppose, though, that you aren't a pacifist nor are you a "nuc 'em all and let God figure it out". I can respect that. Seems odd that many people (not you in particular) would punish an illegal border crosser with the same fate as a serial killer in selected states - by having the government kill them. Don't you find that odd?
In truth, I suspect you and I are not dissimilar in our thoughts on the issue. We have/had a semantics problem.
<< Every National Wildlife Refuge has large areas that are closed to the public, >>
True, but they're closed to everyone to protect wildlife. This area is closed to citizens, but it's still open to drug smugglers. Wouldn't you say there's something inherently wrong with closing an area of public land to citizens, while allowing drug smugglers from another country to make use of it?
First, you inferred that above quotes = "violence (shooting, bombs, etc.) would not stop illegal immigration but you are wrong it would and I just corrected you." I specifically named bombing and landmines and said, "Shoot to kill orders? I don't know. I don't know the legal ramifications of that." I didn't say I was specifically opposed (though that's another debate). We are playing semantics games and it's tiring.
Second, I apologize for saying "You". Clearly you don't advocate landmines. You brought it up landmines so in my response I said "You". This evidently offended you; I apologize. Can we please move on?
If you don't try to understand what motivates a person, how do you expect to stop them? This applies to all criminals. I like to understand people; it helps when dealing with them. Obviously you disagree, but that's another topic altogether.
You say you don't advocate violence, but you support armed forces shooting armed & unarmed people illegally crossing the border. That seems inconsistent. I suppose, though, that you aren't a pacifist nor are you a "nuc 'em all and let God figure it out". I can respect that. Seems odd that many people (not you in particular) would punish an illegal border crosser with the same fate as a serial killer in selected states - by having the government kill them. Don't you find that odd?
In truth, I suspect you and I are not dissimilar in our thoughts on the issue. We have/had a semantics problem.
Again you twist my words when they are right there in black and white. You are either purposely doing this or you just aren't comprehending what you are reading. I give up. Bye.
Illegal aliens and drug smuggling are two very big businesses.
Any questions involving either can be answered by following the $$$$$$.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we need to weigh the risks and understand the ramifications of our choices.
Seriously though, excellent point.