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.
When illegals try to come into the US why don't they just shoot them on sight and put signs on the border saying that use of lethal force is authorized? The cartels are kidnapping and shooting people in the US so you could consider it a foreign invasion by the drug cartels. I will probably go to jail for saying this but I think the US should give mexico an ultamatium if they don't follow it threaten them with nuclear weapons. If they still don't agree then detonate a few tatical nuclear weapons over their military bases and take out the electronics.
When illegals try to come into the US why don't they just shoot them on sight and put signs on the border saying that use of lethal force is authorized? The cartels are kidnapping and shooting people in the US so you could consider it a foreign invasion by the drug cartels. I will probably go to jail for saying this but I think the US should give mexico an ultamatium if they don't follow it threaten them with nuclear weapons. If they still don't agree then detonate a few tatical nuclear weapons over their military bases and take out the electronics.
I don't think most of us would agree to having them shot on sight.
It would be better to build a good fence - much of the border is wide open, extremely easy to cross, and our government is enticing them over with promises of amnesty and quick and easy citizenship - and of course plenty of government handouts as their reward for coming here.
It would be better to go after the corrupt employers who recruit them and hire semi trailers and coyotes to bring in cheap labor. But the government itself knows that the anchor babies have parents here illegally - yet it rewards them very well with food stamps, WIC, free health care, free schools and government housing.
Of course if you're having many children you can't feed and don't want to work especially hard and love dollars - you're going to come on in.
I don't think most of us would agree to having them shot on sight.
It would be better to build a good fence - much of the border is wide open, extremely easy to cross, and our government is enticing them over with promises of amnesty and quick and easy citizenship - and of course plenty of government handouts as their reward for coming here.
It would be better to go after the corrupt employers who recruit them and hire semi trailers and coyotes to bring in cheap labor. But the government itself knows that the anchor babies have parents here illegally - yet it rewards them very well with food stamps, WIC, free health care, free schools and government housing.
Of course if you're having many children you can't feed and don't want to work especially hard and love dollars - you're going to come on in.
Agreed! I don't advocate violence either only as a last resort. In the case that violence is necessary as in the BP's lives being threatened they should be allowed to defend themselves however "stop or I'll shoot" should always be uttered first.
When illegals try to come into the US why don't they just shoot them on sight and put signs on the border saying that use of lethal force is authorized? The cartels are kidnapping and shooting people in the US so you could consider it a foreign invasion by the drug cartels. I will probably go to jail for saying this but I think the US should give mexico an ultamatium if they don't follow it threaten them with nuclear weapons. If they still don't agree then detonate a few tatical nuclear weapons over their military bases and take out the electronics.
1. It doesn't politically benefit either party to endorse such action.
2. The US does not use lethal force against unarmed people who are not hell bent on conducting a terrorist attack.
3. Women and children would be used as "human shields" for the drug runners and human smugglers.
As much as a hardliner as I am on the illegal immigration issue, even I think that the OP is far too extreme and totally unrealistic. However, due to the near state of anarchy on the border, use of deadly force in selective situations would be justified. That means the stationing of heavily armed troops along the border with orders to fire on any persons initiating armed resistence, ie, if the drug smugglers shoot at you or resist arrest kill them. After losing several dozen men the cartels might get the idea that they are facing US troops, not corrupt police forces or the inept Mexican army.
1. It doesn't politically benefit either party to endorse such action.
2. The US does not use lethal force against unarmed people who are not hell bent on conducting a terrorist attack.
3. Women and children would be used as "human shields" for the drug runners and human smugglers.
This is what they are doing using women and children to support them in more than one way.
Build the fence at the top make it hot electric put signage to let everyone know.
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.
