Is it only the illegal immigrants that have been “usually hurtful” or immigrants in general? What makes you believe that the majority of these people are hurtful? (That’s what “usually hurtful” would mean.)
I hope that you are aware that having the National Guard on the border is not going to make your dreams come true just yet. They will not be allowed to detain or arrest those who cross the border and they certainly won’t be allowed to shoot them.
The expression Won’t someone please think of the children? has become a joke and a chiche because it is such common sense that it should never need to be said. It’s not that it isn’t true anymore! Where did you miss out?
Laws have become more important to you than human beings. That seems so twisted to me.
What other countries use summery execution at their borders, instead of the much more common “arrest, trial and detention” model that civilized countries prefer?
I don’t even think China shoots people at their border. We are talking about imitiating such paradises as North Korea.
Talking to you makes me want to go give flowers and home made cookies to my local illegal immigrants…maybe drop a box of donuts off at the day labor pick-up site on my way to work…
If you go into a building that belongs to someone else without permission, you’re trespassing and can be detained and arrested. Even if you are in the building because you have a strange desire to clean the living hell out of it, you’re trespassing. Even if you’re going in to leave every single employee in the building a yummy box of chocolates and a $500 gift certificate to Macy’s, you’re trespassing.
I think the “shoot on sight” people are idiots, but I also think the “but they’re PEOPLE and they’re NICE and they just want to WORK” people are idiots. I’m one of those “all for legal immigration” people who are SUPPOSEDLY copping out.
If you’re an employee [citizen] in the building you can be there. If you become an official employee [citizen]. No matter how pure your intentions, if you enter the building and you’re NOT an employee and you DON’T have permission, you’re trespassing [in the coutry illegally]. I’m really sorry that the plight of poor Mexicans is so bad that they feel they have to trespass to better their lives, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re trespassing.
Well, that’s fine, but I’ll just point out that you can’t shoot trespassers just because they are trespassing. You can’t even shoot them just because they don’t stop when you tell them to.
And if the people who illegally hired them were being punished just as much, if I saw as many howls of outrage about them, I might take the “it’s illegal” arguement seriously. They aren’t, I don’t and therefore I don’t regard this as anything more than racism and classism. We hate them because they are poor brown people, and not because they’ve done anything illegal. I’ve never heard someone suggest shooting Canadians or Germans or British who come here illegally; just Mexicans.
This is wrong on so many levels that it boggles my mind. You think that you have the right to illegally enter any country in the world at any time for any reason, and have no reasonable expectation that they have every right to stop you, using whatever methods they chose, from detention up to and including defending their borders with force? What planet do you live on? What country, if they caught me violating their borders in the middle of the night, and I tried to resist or evade capture by their legitimate authorities, wouldn’t consider deadly force as one of their options for dealing with me? Seriously, which one?
It becomes a lot easier if you take the time to read what I actually say instead of basing your reactions on how dingleberrys like Der Trihs attempt to slant my posts to say what they want them to say.
I never responded to the OP. It was a stupid "look at this, doesn’t it suck?’ post with no substance. I responded to a typical paranoid bleeding heart bullshit “OMG Teh evil right is out to enslave us” quote, and my reply contained the radical notion that the U.S. ought to use their armed forces for the purpose which they were intended, to defend our borders, and yes, I have no problem if they have to use force to do so. That’s it. That’s what I said. Go back and reread it for yourself if you don’t believe me. That and I responded to Steve’s sarcastic “Machine guns and napalm” post with an equally sarcastic post about sniper towers ( use your fucking brains people. The U.S. has 6000 miles of borders. Anyone who proposes “building a sniper tower every 500 yards” is not being serious. That’s does math roughly 22,000 sniper towers. Sure) I haven’t called for the wholesale slaughter of illegals, in fact when questioned on it I said that the only time force might be appropriate would be for people attempting to sneak across the border who “did not immediately surrender when challenged”. At the same time I’ve made points about rewriting immigration law to make immigration simpler and easier, revisiting the language of the 14th Amendment and the attendant Supreme Court case to toughen the current laws and close the “born on U.S. soil” loopholes that currently exist, of the necessity of cracking down hard on those U.S. businesses that employee illegals, including heavy fines and jail time and repeated statements supporting legal immigration, something that I am very, very strongly in support of. All these points have been completely ignored by a group of people trying to distort my original point beyond recognition so they can ridicule it rather than discuss it. To make it easy for you to understand, here is exactly what I believe that is so “controversial”: The U.S. needs to secure it’s borders. It is appropriate to use the military for this purpose (After appropriate training of course). When people are intercepted coming across the border illegally, they should be detained and returned to their country of origin. If these people resist or attempt to avoid being detained, it is appropriate to use force to detain them. Such force can include deadly force if lesser methods fail. Any deaths that result would be a tragedy, of course, but if illegals persist in resisting or evading after being intercepted, warned and continue to resist or evade all non lethal attempts to detain them, then it’s on their head. If you wish to attack that position, feel free, and I’ll discuss it, but THAT is my position on this issue, not anything else that someone may have ascribed to me.
My expanded explanation is above.
We’ll have to see what the force actually is before making this judgment.
Zoe, you couldn’t have missed the point more if you had said that it was a Nazi war cry. “Won’t someone please think of the children” is a joke because of the cadre of people who try to use it as justification for whatever harebrained scheme comes down the pike in an attempt to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility. It is the hallmark of someone attempting to use mindless rhetoric to manipulate the herd. Really.
I for one have stated previously that companies that hire illegal aliens should be punished, prosecuted etc. I am already joining in with boycotts of companies known to hire illegal aliens. I also believe that illegal aliens SHOULD be deported and that it is their responsibility to have their legal ducks in a row if they want to be here. It’s the fault of both the illegal aliens and those that break the law by hiring them, renting them apartments, etc as well as the fault of the US government for letting it go for so long.
“SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.”
Trespass falls under criminal mischief then? And then you can only shoot them at night. I know that thievery at night time has been met with lethal force and tested by the courts. Has trespass?
Interestingly enough Goliad County, Texas, Sheriff Robert DeLaGarza wasn’t too keen on Minutemaids busting caps in illegals’ asses:
" Trigger happy," Goliad County, Texas, Sheriff Robert DeLaGarza thought to himself. It was early July and DeLaGarza was meeting with members of the Texas Minuteman Corps, a new vigilante border patrol outfit that started recruiting in DeLaGarza’s county in June.
“They kept talking a lot about shooting illegals, and what they could and couldn’t do to make it self-defense of life or property,” DeLaGarza said. “One woman kept asking, ‘Well, what if they reach for a rock, can we shoot them then? What if they’re on private land? Can we shoot them for trespassing?’”
DeLaGarza gave the vigilantes a stern warning: “My community doesn’t tolerate racism or racist violence in any form. I told them that if they step one inch out of line, I’m going to hammer their ass.” "
So is fear that hordes of terrorists are flooding across the border, but the last statement I heard from the Head of the Revered Minutemen used it as a justification for what he’s doing.
People are living in TERROR down there, we’re told.
400,000 people are coming across that border illegally every year according to yesterday’s news report. But somehow Them Evil Ayrabs haven’t managed to sneak a single guy with a bag full of C4 in the last five years?
Get down there with a gun, Dave. Show us all. Make your point. Or are you just using ‘mindless rhetoric’? Doing your best to rile up the libruls?
I think I understand your position. Just so I’m clear on the distinction here. What if they are in the building and they are not citizens but they plan on becoming citizens? Is that okay?
What if they have already started some of the paperwork to become citizens but they haven’t finished the lengthy, official process yet so they can hold a legal job but they are in the building doing menial work (not trying to steal the jobs of the Administrators or anything “lofty” like that)?
You know, maybe they are…I don’t know…doing laundry or something small like that for the good law-abiding citizens who work there and the building folks are paying them under the table since they can’t legally hold a job in the building yet. Is that okay? Even though they aren’t legal citizens who can hold jobs? After all,
Or is simply starting the process enough to “legitimize” you to be able to enter the building?
And if you, personally, do that, then I don’t consider you to be a racist. I do consider all the people who rabidly condemn illegal immigrants ( almost always the brown, poor ones ) and ignore the crimes of the rich and white to be racist and classist.
No the process must be complete before they can enter the building/country or have reached a state in the completion where the rules say thet may now come into or work in the building/state.
Now currently the process for legitimixing entry into the country is excessively complex and unreasonable. I don’t think the correct option is to ignore those rules. Instead the fact that such workers are desirable should lead to changes in the actual rules for entering the country, so that the labourers who are wanted can enter the country legally. The fact that so many just ignore the rules (and the people who employ those who break the rules are just as much if not more blaimworthy than those who cross the border) and that this has become the status-quo leads to the rules not being updated and changed to make the situation which people want into the situation that is legal.
Last time I checked, the Minutemen werre observing people crossing the border illegally and then…get this… reporting them to the rightful authorities! The horror! What vicious vigilantees!
Not once have I mentioned terrorists in this thread, although I am sure that more than a couple have entered the country due to lax border protections. Still, your statement is nonesense, I might as well say that because there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1991 that the war in Iraq is working. I bet you wouldn’t agree with that. Just cuz nobody’s blown up a building doesn’t meant that they’re aren’t terrorists in the country planning something. Al Queda waited 8 years between their attacks on the WTC, they’ve demonstrated that they can be patient. Closing the border would likely have the aditional benefit of making it harder for terrorists to infiltrate into the U.S., which is good, but that’s pretty minor benefit overall.
I am not a Border Patrol Officer. Nowhere have I said that private citizens should head for the borders to potshoot illegals. Care to present any evidence that I’ve said such a thing?
