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.
Not much difference except for the low population density and better economy of our neighbor. I did not consider it terrorism until I read this and the conclusion that is reached at the end.
Thought this warranted it's own thread.
THAT ~~ is horrible. IMHO now ~~ I would like to see that damn fence get completed, actually a WALL would be better. the USA is never going to stop them coming in here illegally. I'm also sorry to hear the Minutemen Organization is splitting up.
Border Patrol need more funding for officers, helicopters, drones, vehicles. It's wide open down there, as is Canada/Montana. Kinda scary IMO.
Not much difference except for the low population density and better economy of our neighbor. I did not consider it terrorism until I read this and the conclusion that is reached at the end.
Thought this warranted it's own thread.
I am sure I will take unbelievable heat for this, but none of the past politically-driven, half-a**ed approaches have ever worked.
Announce on every radio & TV station and in every newspaper in Mexico and the US border states that starting at midnight, anyone who crosses the border will be SHOT. Then keep your word and shoot them.
Within a very short time, the flood of illegals will slow to a trickle, then stop.You won't need a wall, you won't need a fence. If people know you say what you mean and mean what you say, they will stop strolling across the border with immunity. This may appear cruel, but in the long run, I sincerely believe it will save lives vs the instances of 40 dead illegals left abandoned and locked in a tractor trailer in 120 degree heat in the desert by a smuggler "coyote".
If there is a better way, why hasn't anyone tried it? OK, feel free to beat me up for being brutal.
GLS, I totally agree with you. I used to have a lot more sympathy for the "plight" of the illegals before I lived in their flood zone. Now, I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
Nan, the diff with Canada is we don't have millions of Canadians coming here illegally and destroying our way of life. I don't see any problem at all with the Canadian border being totally open. But the Mexican border has proved its hostility time and again. More illegals have come into the U.S. from Mexico than the entire population of Canada.
A friend lives right on the border. She says her small acreage is like a highway every night (first illegals, then border patrol in hot pursuit), and it's not safe to be outside after dark anymore.
Last edited by Reziac; 04-01-2010 at 01:38 PM..
Reason: more thinkin'
I talk to BP officers occasionally they say it is a war zone there on the southern.
How has this happened? What have we not been paying attention to?
What can we impose on Mexico as a punishment for not controlling the movement?
I talk to BP officers occasionally they say it is a war zone there on the southern.
How has this happened? What have we not been paying attention to?
What can we impose on Mexico as a punishment for not controlling the movement?
I say we seize the northern 100 miles of Mexico and call it a militarized zone and put our solders there to protect our country from invasion. That is what Mexico is doing, they are invading our country. Our armed forces exist to protect us and we have some insane notion that we are not to place our military on the border.
Our leaders have run us into the ground and we all better wake up soon or we are doomed.
I talk to BP officers occasionally they say it is a war zone there on the southern.
How has this happened? What have we not been paying attention to?
What can we impose on Mexico as a punishment for not controlling the movement?
This has happened for a myriad of reasons, including not holding Mexico accountable for their failure to control their side of the border. The idea advanced in Ricker's post would go a long way in remedying this problem.
However, the majority of the problem rests with the liberal, "compassionate" policies of our own government AND our hypocrisy in promising a solution, then backing away from implementing it, when "political correctness" made it uncomfortable. For example, we compassionately tried limited amnesty under Reagan, but after the gift of amnesty, never took a hard line at choking off further illegal immigration. This approach just further motivated more people to rush in, expecting we would weaken our resolve and give them amnesty also. Now we are on the verge of committing the same error.
We promised to empower the border patrol, but then underfunded them.
To add further insult, we prosecuted a couple of our own border patrol for shooting a known drug smuggler in the butt while he tried to escape. Message to illegal criminals: "Don't worry, we'll just ask you nicely to drop your guns and leave". Message to our own officers: "Think twice before taking any action or the ACLU will sue you and put you in jail where you will be an easy target".
We tried building a fence, but built it short enough they could just walk around.
Let's face it, we have met the enemy and he is us. Our politicians promise action, then cut and run the first time Mexico whines, the ACLU burps, or any minority group protests or threatens to with-hold their vote.
That's how we got here. We swagger about, let them spit in our face, then hang our head like cowards.
I wish I could argue with GLS and Ricker's sumnations, unfortunately I can't.
As long as illegal aliens are embraced by some politically powerful segments of the population, we will not get a handle on the problem.
It isn't entirely Mexico's problem, their emigration policies are pretty strict, but what the illegals in America do is send home lots of dollars that end up in the coffers of the ruling class. They aren't about to put the brakes on to kill the golden goose.
Eastern Europe under the Russians tried some of the most draconian measures imaginable to stem the flow of people running from the textbook "workers paradise", and while they stopped most, (usually with a bullet, a dog, or a mine), some made good their escape.
Humans are increadibly inventive creatures and as long as there is something they want, they will find a way to get it.
Even a fence or wall along the boarder is pretty much a 1 dimensional solution.
The tunnels used for smuggling under the fence, airplanes over the fence or boats coming around the ends on the open ocean can still get around the barrier.
We aren't trying to keep them in, we are trying to keep them out and until the politicians in Washington don't have the benefit of millions of votes through amnesty, there is a significant political benefit to letting them in.
National will must be to stop this, or it never will.
Threat of bodily harm doesn't scare the drug runners. What is on their side of the boarder is scarier than what they face in our milktoast judicial system.
What I am getting to in a long drawn out way, is that if our prisons don't scare drug runners. Why not contract to Mexico to house their criminals?
The ACLU and other liberal groups have no power there, and a Mexican prison IS punishment.
As long as drugs are glorified in counter culture, movies and tv, there will be those stupid enough to try them and once addicted create a market that will pay any price to feed that addiction.
Acceptance of drugs creates an atmosphere where drug use is seen as "harmless" or "part of growing up" just as a kid getting a first beer used to be.
Legalization of drugs is tatamount to opening the floodgates. Yes, Prohibition of alcohol failed, but most beer, wine or whiskey don't create an addiction with the first use like Methamphetamine does.
Until we as a culture disavow drug use, not just a lip service like we have now, there will be a market for illegal drugs and they will be smuggled in at any cost.
If the aliens are not affraid they will be arrested and deported within a few days, not given a deportation hearing, or lawyers, just sent home, there is no reason not to try.
Swift, sure, no nonsense. You break the law, you will be sent back.
Until no-one will hire an illegal, there is money here. Until they cannot qualify for welfare, section 8 housing, free education etc. the rewards of coming across outweigh the penalties.
Actually, one of the simplest ways to slow the flow, would be to make a demand that they have to speak English. Most illegals don't, and right now they don't have to. We even print ballots in their language, teach school in their native tounge, I believe we should require that they have a minimal proficentcy in our language or go home. Mexico demands you speak spanish if you live there.
If they can't communicate, read road signs or get work because they can't speak English, perhaps it would make them either stay in school back home, or not come here at all.
Until the reasons for attempting the crossing no longer exist, people will cross over. Whether they are running to a new life, or running away from the old one.
More's the pity.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 04-01-2010 at 07:55 PM..
I say we seize the northern 100 miles of Mexico and call it a militarized zone and put our solders there to protect our country from invasion. That is what Mexico is doing, they are invading our country. Our armed forces exist to protect us and we have some insane notion that we are not to place our military on the border.
Our leaders have run us into the ground and we all better wake up soon or we are doomed.
I wish I could argue with GLS and Ricker's sumnations, unfortunately I can't.
As long as illegal aliens are embraced by some politically powerful segments of the population, we will not get a handle on the problem.
It isn't entirely Mexico's problem, their emigration policies are pretty strict, but what the illegals in America do is send home lots of dollars that end up in the coffers of the ruling class. They aren't about to put the brakes on to kill the golden goose.
Eastern Europe under the Russians tried some of the most draconian measures imaginable to stem the flow of people running from the textbook "workers paradise", and while they stopped most, (usually with a bullet, a dog, or a mine), some made good their escape.
Humans are increadibly inventive creatures and as long as there is something they want, they will find a way to get it.
Even a fence or wall along the boarder is pretty much a 1 dimensional solution.
The tunnels used for smuggling under the fence, airplanes over the fence or boats coming around the ends on the open ocean can still get around the barrier.
We aren't trying to keep them in, we are trying to keep them out and until the politicians in Washington don't have the benefit of millions of votes through amnesty, there is a significant political benefit to letting them in.
National will must be to stop this, or it never will.
Threat of bodily harm doesn't scare the drug runners. What is on their side of the boarder is scarier than what they face in our milktoast judicial system.
What I am getting to in a long drawn out way, is that if our prisons don't scare drug runners. Why not contract to Mexico to house their criminals?
The ACLU and other liberal groups have no power there, and a Mexican prison IS punishment.
As long as drugs are glorified in counter culture, movies and tv, there will be those stupid enough to try them and once addicted create a market that will pay any price to feed that addiction.
Acceptance of drugs creates an atmosphere where drug use is seen as "harmless" or "part of growing up" just as a kid getting a first beer used to be.
Legalization of drugs is tatamount to opening the floodgates. Yes, Prohibition of alcohol failed, but most beer, wine or whiskey don't create an addiction with the first use like Methamphetamine does.
Until we as a culture disavow drug use, not just a lip service like we have now, there will be a market for illegal drugs and they will be smuggled in at any cost.
If the aliens are not affraid they will be arrested and deported within a few days, not given a deportation hearing, or lawyers, just sent home, there is no reason not to try.
Swift, sure, no nonsense. You break the law, you will be sent back.
Until no-one will hire an illegal, there is money here. Until they cannot qualify for welfare, section 8 housing, free education etc. the rewards of coming across outweigh the penalties.
Actually, one of the simplest ways to slow the flow, would be to make a demand that they have to speak English. Most illegals don't, and right now they don't have to. We even print ballots in their language, teach school in their native tounge, I believe we should require that they have a minimal proficentcy in our language or go home. Mexico demands you speak spanish if you live there.
If they can't communicate, read road signs or get work because they can't speak English, perhaps it would make them either stay in school back home, or not come here at all.
Until the reasons for attempting the crossing no longer exist, people will cross over. Whether they are running to a new life, or running away from the old one.
More's the pity.
How did the eastern block keep folks in for the years they did? Sure there were the creative few who made it over but as someone who occasionally had to make a trip to western Berlin back in the day I will tell you, you did not want to **** with the guards or you would just simply disappear. Are we just lacking the backbone to make it stick? I refuse to believe we cannot do something about this.
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.
