GIGObuster, you accused me of “once again just trusting [my] ignorant sources.” I think you owe me an apology for this incorrect accusation. At least, you might have retracted the accusation in a nicer fashion.
Also, if you think some of my answers are ignorant and biased, would you please identify them so I have a chance to defend myself.
The question was whether vigilantes are a good idea. The answer is they are a terrible idea.
The question was not whether the US should increase border patrols or any other question. But in typical fashion some set up smokescreens and straw men and in the end no one knows what is being discussed.
Debaser: One of the (if not the most) serious threat to national security right now is terrorists sneaking in a WMD through either of our wide open borders and killing millions of us. The INS and border patrol have proven themselves ineffective.
sailor: I’d like to see some support that the Mexicans sneaking across the border are carrying weapons of mass destruction.
december: We’re not talking about Mexicans sneaking across the border; we’re talking about people sneaking across the Mexican border. These people may not all be Mexican.
sailor: Great. I’d like to see some evidence that those people who are sneaking accross the border and are often dying in the desert, are likely or even capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, I would like to see some convincing explanation that a bunch of self-appointed vigilantes is the best way to defend against such WMD.
december: Unfortunately, it is the best way, because it’s the only way. The government isn’t doing Jack Sh*t about this.
And so on. No answers to my questions, only new smokescreens.
There are no WMD coming in the Arizona border, and even if there were, a few dozen rednecks are not the ideal way to deal with them.
In a civilized country, with rule of law and such, individuals are not entitled to usurp government functions no matter what. You may think the government is not doing enough about something but that does not entitle you to take matters into your own hands. You may think the USA should attack North Korea but that does not entitle you to go there and try to kill a few soldiers.
Pweoplw who advocate vigilantes are advocating returning to a lawless society. If you want to expel all Mexicans then vote for Pat Buchanan but don’t take matters into your own hands because by doing that you are authorising some Mexican to take you into his own hands if and when he can.
I said these people weren’t all Mexicans, not that they had anything to do with WMDs. Why not ask the poster who raised that issue?
However, I wonder if you’re right about capability of carrying WMDs. I once attended a talk by the physisist Sidney Drell on nuclear disarmament. Drell had been a US representative in various disarmament negotions with the Soviet Union. He used a cardboard prop the size and shape of a hydrogen bomb. As I recall, it was only around 2 feet wide and 3 feet long. It could be transported in a small truck – perhaps even in the trunk of a car.
Suppose Saddam Hussein or some terrorist developed a new strain of smallpox that didn’t respond to our vaccines. How much would be needed to started an epidemic? Would an amount that that a single person could carry on a backpack be enough?
As I pointed out earlier, why wouldn’t the terrorist come through the Canadian border, which is much less heavily guarded, and which has a lot fewer armed white supremacist yahoos running around looking for someone to bully?
Answer: that’s exactly what terrorists have done in the past. I’m unaware of any explosives that have been smuggled successfully into the US and subsequently used in a terrorist attack, but there was the case a couple of years ago in which a terrorist smuggled explosives into Washington State through the Canadian border and got caught only once he was already there.
A terrorist would be an idiot to try to bring explosives in through Mexico instead of through Canada. This particular justification is a nonstarter.
As an aside, I remember hearing conservatives decrying Democrats’ ubiquitous, “Won’t you think of the children?” a few years ago. Myself, I’m getting sick of the opposite: “Won’t anyone think of the terrorists?” Don’t bring up that bugaboo unless it applies, m’kay?
Daniel
december, I do not care how many suppositions you make, the fact is that you cannot take matters into your own hands. Suppose you believe the Queen of England during her upcoming visit intends to assasinate the president. You can call the FBI and the CIA and your rabbi and your mother and tell them all about it but you cannot take it into your own hands to arrest the queen of England. There is a reason why we have governments. Sheesh.
Maybe vigilantes at the Mexican border could free up more INS agents to protect the Canadian border.
Cite? What proportion of the American people support having the military patrol our borders?
Yes, the Border Patrol and INS have proven far too ineffective. In INS’ case, this is generally because they are unable to comprehend their own regulations well enough to enforce them consistently, and/or because they don’t have the proper resources and IT infrastructure to do so. (I can’t speak as much for the Border Patrol, because I don’t deal with them on a daily basis like I do with INS.) So you propose to replace trained professionals with people with ZERO experience in immigration enforcement?
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal and former DOJ Office of the Immigration Judge (aka Immigration Court) employee
Geez, December, is it my birthday or what? You’re making this so easy for me…
…Oh, I know, it’s Christmas! Well, Merry Christmas to you too, Sweetie!
Okay:
Canadian-U.S. border [size=0]famously one of the loosest borders in the world --> drug smuggling --> drug trafficking --> crime[/size]
Gee, you’re right! It works! All we have to do is tighten up the border between Canada and the U.S. and the whole Canadian drug smuggling problem will disappear! And auto theft rates in Walhalla, North Dakota will plummet! Yes, loose borders do indeed cause many, many problems, and I’m so glad you pointed this out. Maybe you should mention it to the DEA, the INS, the DOJ, and of course Ottawa would probably be grateful for the heads-up, I imagine they’ve been concerned about all those drug smugglers in Winkler, waiting for their NoDak coyotes to guide them over the border…
>> Maybe vigilantes at the Mexican border could free up more INS agents to protect the Canadian border
I am stunned by the sheer stupidity of this. I suppose people, instead of suing in court, could take matters into their own hands and free up more judges for other things where they are more needed. Why waste the time of trained government officials when I can do the same thing for free? Also send vigilantes into SE DC where the police seems to be unable to stop crime. Great ideas if you want to end up like Afghanistan or Somalia.
And I SO look forward to seeing your solution to this particular loose border:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/794/transp.htm
And this one:
And this one:
Please tell me how many Border Patrol agents it would take to create a “tight” border all through the Great Lakes, both the U.S. and Canadian postal systems, and the entire sky?
Ya know, Montana is known as “Big Sky Country”. They’ve got a lot of Sky, out west…
Not to mention close inspection of all cargo entering the USA. Do you know what that means? It means it is impossible. It is absolutely impossible to check everything that enters the country. Does someone know the sheer numbers of containers enertering every day by land and by sea? The cargo arriving by air? It is utterly impossible to check it all and, even if it was possible I am not sure I would want to government having that much power.
As has been said, it used to be “think of the children” used to justify anything. Now it is “think of the terrorists”.
Yes drugs can be smuggled in through the canadian border as well, probably with less chance of detection.
BUT
The US/Mexico border is closer, a shorter distance, and in many cases just as easy to slip though. Shipping drugs entails additional costs and creates an additional chance of discovery, especially in large quantities. So despite tighter controls, the mexico border is still the “path of least resistance”
I will not bother with WMD issues since a trained terrorist outfit with organization and planning will get pretty much anything they want across a border.
I saw an episode of 48 hours a while back where they did part of the show on a ranch along the border. Part of the main problem for them was that starving, dehydrated border crossers would attempt to break into their home looking for food and such. On several occasions members of the family had been assaulted upon confronting these people.
I am not in support of hunting people in the desert, however dealing with hungry desparate people with little to lose is not a great position to be debating miranda from. In the position of the homeowner on the show…I would let them cross my rangeland if they had to…but climbing a 6’ chain link fence into my yard is asking for lethal trouble. It takes some balls to tresspass on a well fenced piece of property, if you are willing to take that chance with your life…I am not willing to give you the chance to hurt me or my family.
I grew up in a town heavy in migrant labor (watsonville,ca). Most of these people just want to work, plenty of problems come with them. The anonymity granted by their lack of official status and the lack of detailed record keeping by many farmers makes an almost ideal hideout for criminals and otherwise unsavory types. Much of the crime especially during heavy harvest time seems to involve migrant workers.
Not to support Robert here but insinuating membership and or sympathy to a racist organization does smack lightly of invoking Goodwins Law. Kinda like if I stated “DDG are you a memberr of PETA?” might insinuate you have an irrational POV on animal rights.
drachillix, the discussion is not whether you have any obligation of letting migrants into your home, but whether vigilantes who go out looking for them are a good idea. Very different.
If you live in certain places you can expect certain things and that is a fccact of life just because the world is not a perfect place. If you live in parts of DC you can expect lots of crime in the neighborhood and breakin attempts in your home. You have a right to take reasonable precautions to protect yourself and your home but you do not have a right to assume the powers of the Police Department. You also have the right to move elsewhere.
Having said that, if someone is dying of thirst outside your door, the humane thing to do is give them water.
However detaining someone you believe to be an illegal alien (citizens arrest) for the authorities would be perfectly reasonable and legal, especially if they happen to be tresspassing. Hunting and killing them…bad, assiting law enforcement in a legal manner could be interesting however.
What if a rancher hired armed security guards to patrol his property, or a group of neighboring ranchers. With the support of the ranchers in question it pretty much becomes a legal mini-police force.
Yes, of course.
Right. He seemed irrational on the subject of illegal immigration, and he posted links to other people who were similarly irrational on the subject.
If someone in GD seems to have an irrational view on anything, it is perfectly legitimate to inquire as to whether that person is a member of an organization that promotes that view. If someone seems irrational on the subject of the Democratic Party, it is reasonable to inquire as to his party affiliation. If someone seems irrational on the subject of SUVs, either for or against, it’s a legitimate question to ask what kind of car he drives.
Especially since just a short while ago we were inundated in Great Debates by folks from said MB. And here was yet another one, posting the same theories and the same links. I was saying exactly what it sounded like I was saying: “Are you one of them? Because we’ve heard this all before, ya know.”
I actually don’t care if he’s a member of storm front dot org or not, I just wanted to know whether these were actually his own ideas, or if he was just parroting anti-immigration propaganda. Evidently it was the latter.
I am really curious if anyone has a problem with this method. If the ranchers hire a legit licenced security outfit with instructions not to permit anyone to enter the property would this be ok. In essence their job would be to seek out and detain tresspassers, illegal or not, for the authorities. Granted the reason they were put in place was due to the presence of the illegals, but the property owner does have the right to disallow others access to his property.
I believe it is mostly not private property but national property where some ranchers have grazing rights. As an aside, it would seem reasonable to me that all border property should noty be private. At any rate, if I am walking in the middle of the country and I happen to be on someone’'s property by mistake, the owner can arrest me and hold me for the cops? I don’t think so.
DENOUNCE
I know I won’t convert any xenophobes out there, but mexicans coming across the border and working in our economy doesn’t exactly send chills up my spine. And the whole argument that “some” of them might be terrorists carrying WMD is rather specious, there are better ways that don’t involve the options that most desperate mexican immigrants have to turn to.
If they lease the property for most legal purposes it is their property and can restrict access to whomever they please.
I agree but how large should this “deprivataized zone” extend? IIRC in the 48 hours episode the people lived 3-5 miles from the border.
Like it or not yes. Many people fail to realize just how much power they have to arrest or detain someone. Will the courts follow through on the charges, my guess is no. Ignorance is usually not an excuse, or else many criminals would have an easy out. Will you do time even if found guilty of trespass, nah, slap on the wrist. Little fine or community service. Resisting a legal arrest however opens up a whole new can of enchilada sauce.
If an illegal is arrested for tresspass he will be deported once local law enforcement gets ahold of him/her. Does this make it ok to resist legal arrest?
Yes it sucks that mexico’s economy can’t support their families, we have a system by which they can legally come here to work. If they circumvent the system, they take horrendous chances. Some of those chances get them dead. Many of them understand perfectly well the dangers they face in crossing