So, Trump has expressed a desire, per CNN, to have illegal immigrants shot.
This would be an inhumane, despicable act. And it doesn’t address the root cause of illegal immigration. (though, in reality, it might be an effective deterrent)
So my first thought is “no, this would be a violation of international law and a failure to use proportional force”.
But, then again, trespassers at the Area 51 base can legally be shot for entering a restricted area. The border fencing is Federal property and this is an international border. Could the Feds declare a military controlled zone up and down the border, post signs in multiple languages warning that lethal force is authorized, and fire on anyone that crosses?
Could the President make an executive order authorizing this? Is it within his powers?
If the answer is no, why can the military shoot unarmed area 51 trespassers to prevent them from seeing what’s there? What precisely authorizes this?
Well, there’s actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally. Kinda hard to reconcile that with needing to kill the person.
If you invade Area 51, the White House, or whatever, you aren’t just going to be shot on sight. I don’t even know where you get that idea. The authorities would attempt to detain you, and if you escalated the situation, oh yeah, you could be shot. But it isn’t like the East Germans shooting people trying to crawl over the Wall.
Plus I should add that crossing the border is merely a misdemeanor, or even just a civil matter. Military facilities are covered by other laws, such as the Espionage Act which provides far more serious penalties.
Some of those East German border guards were convicted of manslaughter (the judge was not impressed by their “I was just following orders” defense), so that is not a precedent for shooting refugees being legal, quite the opposite.
I got the idea from official statements from the Air Force warning lethal force is authorized. And similar bases have warning signs saying you can be shot. I am taking them at their word.
I am assuming by “escalate” you mean “keep walking in the direction of the secret base” right?
Nope. “Escalate” means to walk on carrying weapons or explosives, or to ram the gates in a vehicle. Also, if you charge the guards in a threatening manner, they do have a right to defend themselves. If you simply keep walking, they have less lethal means at their disposal such as tasers and rubber bullets.
Yeah, actually, it does. That’s what the sentence “there’s actually a law that allows people to seek asylum in this country without having entered legally” means.
No, what the law states is that you can claim asylum from within the USA regardless of immigration status OR apply at a port of entry.
It does not, not even a little, not even in the most brain-dead interpretation, mean that a person can just waltz across an international border unrestricted to claim asylum. In that case the legal route is to apply at the port of entry and stand-by.
Nowhere has it ever been legal to cross a border illegally just to claim asylum. That has always been an illegal entry and will forever continue to be so.
Yep, and if you get asylum then your status is “legal”.
Look up the phrase “wet foot dry foot” in regards to Cubans. Lots of former citizens of Cuba came to Florida without seeking permission first and got to stay without penalty.
Sure - it’s as serious a crime as shoplifting. Shop owners aren’t justified in shooting people stealing candy bars.
Plus there’s a factual matter here: the vast majority of people coming over the border recently are actively looking to get caught so they can exercise their lawful claim of asylum. Shooting people who are surrendering is yet another sadistic and evil idea from a racist disgrace.
That’s an understatement, but the severity of the crime means nothing. It’s still a crime and one that is willfully broken and costs the taxpayer billions and billions and billions of dollars to adjudicate people who by and large will be denied and deported.
And there’s no end in sight.
And that’s only the ones that get caught & cry asylum.
They won’t be shot on sight and fuk knows the context or truth behind the statement or if it was even made.
The point is that it’s billions and billions and billions of wasted treasure that should be spent on citizens, not illegal aliens. It’s absurd.
Please provide a cite that illegal aliens are a net cost to the taxpayer. My understanding is that they are a net boon to the economy, so please cite your claim.
I never made that argument. That’s a little strawman you fabricated.
But:
How about lower state taxes, lower property taxes, lower healthcare costs, more educational funds going to citizens not aliens. Taking a chip out of the deficit. All these things impact the people in the country who need this money the most - lower middle class and below.
We hemorrhage money left right and center and the absolute LAST people we should be funding are illegal aliens at the expense of taxpayers. There is not a sound argument that can be made for it.