Mexico threatens MinuteMan Project....

[ahenry]

Shootinstudent,

Anyway, my question is: What do you support? Not, "what will the law allow right now?". There's absolutely zero question that shooting someone for illegal immigration alone will land you in jail for murder right now. But does anyone seriously think that should be changed?

If Rafael Resendez-Rairez, the Railway Killer, murderer of at least eight people in the U.S. and perhaps one of the Juarez serial killers as well, were fleeing arrest, I suspect you would be in favor of the authorities shooting him in order to stop his getaway. Right?

If John Lee Malvo had attempted to evade arrest by fleeing the cops as they were trying to arrest him, would you be in favor of their use of deadly force? I assume you would.

Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed is a high ranking al Qaeda operative that was arrested by the Border Patrol in McAllen, Texas after she illegally crossed the border. I assume that you would have been in favor of the Border Patrol using deadly force to affect her arrest had she attempted to flee?

In order to prevent their escape, would you be in favor of the use of deadly force against any of the al Qaeda operatives that carried out the September 11th attacks were they still alive and in the U.S.?

In every single one of these examples the perpetrator was an illegal alien (although not all of them “entered without inspection”). I use these high-profile examples because you don’t live on the border and I don’t want my reply to be abstract, but they are not atypical of the types of individuals crossing the border nowadays. Were we able to conclusively prove the point, I would be willing to wager a lot of money with you that individuals like the people I mentioned illegally cross the border every single day. In fact, I am more than certain that many individuals like that illegally cross the border each day. So, to me the question is not “should you shoot someone for illegal immigration alone”, but rather “how many of those ‘gotaways’ are murderers, terrorists, rapists, or violent criminals, and to how much force is justified to prevent their ‘gotaway’?" No, I’m not suggesting that the Border Patrol should start shooting people that crosses the border illegally. What I am saying is that nations have border control for the simple reason that it is in their own self-interest to keep riff-raff of all types out of their population, a concept that the very framers of our government supported. Higher levels of force are indeed justified against those individuals that are deemed to be unwelcome, and in fact dangerous, to the people of the United States. By analogy, would you be justified in using deadly force against a home invader even if he doesn’t explicitly threaten your life? In virtually all states in America, you would be.

 

[shootinstudent]

they are not atypical of the types of individuals crossing the border nowadays.

Do you have some evidence of this? I think those individuals are atypical of people period. There aren't many like them in the entire world. That's why we notice them.

My point was about shooting people only for crossing the border, and no more. If the person is a known murderer or terrorist, go to town. But you can't assume that the person is such an evil thing just because he's crossing the border. Hence, it is not moral or legal to shoot people only for the crime of border crossing.

What I am saying is that nations have border control for the simple reason that it is in their own self-interest to keep riff-raff of all types out of their population, a concept that the very framers of our government supported.

The framers imported millions of slaves. I think they were much more interested in having people to work the land than in having closed borders. Later on, under Polk, the US specifically granted citizenship to all hispanic people living in the conquered states at the time. Hardly a "keep all undesireables out" policy.

Higher levels of force are indeed justified against those individuals that are deemed to be unwelcome, and in fact dangerous, to the people of the United States.

Well, that gets back to the same issue. If the "unwelcome" people you're talking about are immigrants, I disagree. If there is a known person, like the railway killer, that law enforcement have spotted and are chasing, fine. But he's not fair game because he's an illegal immigrant. He's fair game because he's a known murderer. The fact that there are some criminals crossing the border doesn't give anybody license to go mowing people down whereever they see them crossing...

Just like the fact that a few soldiers abused their power in Iraq doesn't mean that the entire US army is a blood thirsty, torturing mob. I think we ought to get away from classifying people by groups. I hate it when people abroad classify Americans this way and use it as an excuse to do things that wouldn't be allowed otherwise, and I see no reason why we Americans should behave that way ourselves.

 

[ahenry]

Do you have some evidence of this? I think those individuals are atypical of people period.

Only what I’ve personally noticed. Of course, I suspect I have a significantly better view of the situation based in part on living close to the border as well as other things.

My point was about shooting people only for crossing the border, and no more. If the person is a known murderer or terrorist, go to town. But you can't assume that the person is such an evil thing just because he's crossing the border. Hence, it is not moral or legal to shoot people only for the crime of border crossing.

You completely missed my point. If we were to stipulate that 100% of the people crossing the border were violent criminals then I think its safe to say that you would be in favor of the authorities shooting those illegal border jumpers that they are unable to apprehend peacefully. Right? If that is the case this question is not one of the morality of shooting a border jumper but rather a difference of opinion regarding the types of people that cross the border. You hold that the average wet crossing the border is just a hard working Juan, looking for a better life for his family. I hold that the average wet crossing the border is less likely to be little “abuelita” looking for a better life and more likely to be some “cholo” looking for an easy score in the land of the affluent.

I think they [the framers] were much more interested in having people to work the land than in having closed borders. Later on, under Polk, the US specifically granted citizenship to all hispanic people living in the conquered states at the time. Hardly a "keep all undesireables out" policy.

I think you should read their own comments before you opine like that. Fact of the matter is that many of the framers specifically stated that it is the right and even duty of a nation to control who enters the country. Please note that I made no reference to a specific race or nationality, and in fact my previous examples included only one Hispanic individual. We are both intelligent enough to know where the majority of these illegal aliens are coming from, but I am not basing any of my argument on race, culture, or nationality and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am.

Well, that [“higher levels of force” to stop a fleeing criminal] gets back to the same issue. If the "unwelcome" people you're talking about are immigrants, I disagree.

Here you go, right back to discussing immigration when the entire conversation is about illegal immigration. The issue we are discussing is not one of dealing with immigrants, it is dealing with criminals, albeit, illegal immigrant criminals.

If there is a known person, like the railway killer, that law enforcement have spotted and are chasing, fine. But he's not fair game because he's an illegal immigrant. He's fair game because he's a known murderer.

I agree, which is why I used the examples I did. However, the fact is, an illegal immigrant has already shown certain character flaws that in my mind make him an undesirable immigrant regardless of other factors. I suspect we agree as to whether that is a shooting offence or not, but in the end, I do not want any illegal immigrants here if for no other reason than they had the gall to spit in the face of the laws of the very country they “say” they want to be a part of. That is unconscionable. I am sympathetic to the plight of those in third world countries, I am not sympathetic to the individuals that choose to “make a better life for themselves” by breaking the law, one of the things that make this nation what it is.

The fact that there are some criminals crossing the border doesn't give anybody
license to go mowing people down whereever they see them crossing...

I didn’t say it did. What I said was that there is a point at which shooting a criminal in order to stop his attempt at evading arrest is not only justified, I believe it is the moral thing to do. That brings us full circle to my earlier comment that this is not a matter of “ ‘should you shoot someone for illegal immigration alone’, but rather ‘how many of those ‘gotaways’ are murderers, terrorists, rapists, or violent criminals, and to how much force is justified to prevent their ‘gotaway’?’”. You clearly believe that most, if not all, illegal aliens are “good people” just trying to make a better life. I most definitely do not. Moreover, I would wager that my exposure to illegal aliens and their impact on individuals and the nation as a whole is vastly greater than yours. My experience with them goes back for generations, just what experience do you have?

 

[shootinstudent]

Ahenry,

Of course, I suspect I have a significantly better view of the situation based in part on living close to the border as well as other things

I grew up in rural california, where the farms are, I speak spanish, and I now live in Texas. I have grown up with illegal immigrants my entire life. I have also lived in the Washington Metro area, one of the most heavily populated with illegal immigrants in the country.

If we were to stipulate that 100% of the people crossing the border were violent criminals then I think its safe to say that you would be in favor of the authorities shooting those illegal border jumpers that they are unable to apprehend peacefully. Right?

That's the wrong issue. What I'm saying is that the people who deserve to be shot, deserve to be shot for crimes like murder and terrorism. Not for illegal border crossing. So, again, the fact that these bad folks are also illegal immigrants is not relevant. It has nothing to do with the crimes that make them fair game for Law Enforcement. So for me this is not a question of "who is crossing the border." If someone is a known murderer, that person ought to be tracked down wherever he is, Mexico, the US, or anywhere else. Borders have nothing to do with who is a scumbag murderer or not.

Fact of the matter is that many of the framers specifically stated that it is the right and even duty of a nation to control who enters the country.

Sure, and as a part of that vision they invited people from all over, and forced others. They were definitely not anti-Immigration. And I did not mean to imply that this had anything to do with race. My point was that the US has historically invited millions of immigrants into the country to serve as labor, and so the idea that the founding fathers would want a closed border does not wash with me.

I do not want any illegal immigrants here if for no other reason than they had the gall to spit in the face of the laws of the very country they “say” they want to be a part of.

If that is your only issue with Immigration, then would you be fine with all immigrants if the US senate changed the law to say "immigration by extra legal channels is not a crime"? If so, then Bush's amnesty plan ought to satisfy you, because the law will declare that none of the millions it reaches are criminals. I suspect, though, that immigration isn't just about what the law says right now. That can change. I think you're more interested in the effects on the country of immigration, than on whether or not Congress says x number of people may enter.

Moreover, I would wager that my exposure to illegal aliens and their impact on individuals and the nation as a whole is vastly greater than yours. My experience with them goes back for generations, just what experience do you have?

Same. California born and raised for a couple of generations. And, an interesting point: Where I am from, there are hordes of illegal immigrants to work the agricultural industry. As long as I have been alive, there have only been three murders in my home town, and not a one was committed by an illegal immigrant.

 

[Edison Carter]

Shootinstudent,

You seem to regard mass immigration as an unmitigated good.

Does a landowner have the right to limit an invasion of strangers trespassing
and leaving trash and crap on his land?

Do citizens in this country have the right to limit the entry of foreigners,
and limit their time and activities while they are here?

Do we have the right to limit immigration like any other country does?
Like, say...... MEXICO?

If we have no business in these things, then you have no business
in keeping a dozen of us from camping on your lawn, sleeping on
your couch, borrowing your car, and taking your credit card to pay
for our visits to the hospital.

What's your address? Here we come.

EC

 

[shootinstudent]

EC,

I have not once, ever, said that unlimited immigration is an unmitigated good. Not even close. Yes, you have the right to defend your property. Yes, the US has a right to and NEEDS to control access to its territories. That has never been the issue.

My main point is simply that we do also need a large number of immigrant workers to keep the economy going strong. I was agreeing with Greenspan on that point. I support the Bush plan, I do NOT favor an open border policy. I think the best plan will issue permits that allow a large number of workers to cross back and forth freely, as long as they do no harm in either the United States or mexico.

I also think that, even absent immigration reform, illegal crossing of a border cannot rationally be considered an offense that warrants a summary death penalty. If I wake up in the morning and some homeless person is camping on my front lawn, I'll be happy to ask him to move, and even call the police. I would rightfully be branded a murderer if I decided to give him one warning and then shoot him dead when I saw him crossing back onto my lawn to set up camp for another night or two. There are some behaviors, even criminal, for which death is NOT an appropriate punishment. That's my point about enforcement options. Even if shooting first were the only way to stop illegal border crossing, I would never, ever support it.

 

[Edison Carter]

So you would call in armed muscle (the police) to enforce your property rights.

If he resists, they shoot him dead.

This is different from enforcing border control, how?

EC

 

[shootinstudent]

EC,

No, the police do not shoot people dead for refusing to comply with police orders. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in the US where police as a rule shoot people who are trespassing, solely because they refuse to leave.

So no, it's not so different. I'll ask you the question I asked above: Do you support imposing the death penalty for the crime of illegal immigration?

 

[Edison Carter]

Nice try.

People get shot for failing to follow police orders, lawful and otherwise
with great regularity.

Don't come off that illegal aliens are just mindless victims who
JUST HAPPEN to be on the wrong side of the border.

Illegal aliens DELIBERATELY violate our laws in sneaking here, or in
overstaying visas. They do this at great personal expense and risk
to their own lives. They die in our desert, they put themnselves in
the hands of COYOTES who sometimes get them killed,
or rob and murder them. The Mexican government encourages
this, and is very responsible for their deaths.

Our immigration policy should serve AMERICANS.
Not Mexicans, not Norweigans, not Jorge Fox, and not George Bush.

As such it should come from AMERICANS, and not from political traitors
in Washington. Not From Mexican politicians who want to unload their
undesirable population. Not from American Employers who demand
slave labor peons. Not from Drug smugglers. Not from regular Mexican
Army officers employed by drug smugglers. Not from fifth column outfits
like MALDEF, the ACLU, and the Democratic Party.

This is not a matter of one bum, down on his luck who just needs to
be chivied along.

On the national level, you have bums on your lawn, they are sleeping on
your couch, they are consuming the contents of your refrigerator,
somebody already stole your car, somebody has already found your liquor,
your gun, shot another home invader, and you have already been billed for
his medical treatment. One of them has AIDS, and another has
tuberculosis, another is about to have a baby and you will be responsible for
that child as if it were your own until age 18..... and it will never feel any
affinity for your values. They are not all deadbeats, several of them applied
for your job, and the only way you will keep your job is to accept a cut in
wages of 15%, this year. Your son has just received a letter that he will
have to pay out of state tuition at the University, but one of the illegal
squatters in your basement will get the immigrant/in-state deal.
One of them now wants to sleep in bed with your six-year old daughter....

You called the police, but they are too busy for your problems, maybe
you would like to fill out a complaint form, sorry no English forms left,
maybe we can find a translator for you... do you speak Hmong?

You asked if I support Death Penalty for illegal immigration.
With 20 million illegal aliens here now, the time for nice is OVER.
If you can persuade them to go home, you do that.....

Til then I think an illegal alien deserves the same consideration
I'll give a home invader in my house at 4 AM. And for the same reason.

This is MY home.

EC

 

[shootinstudent]

People get shot for failing to follow police orders, lawful and otherwise
with great regularity.

Name one jurisdiction where it is acceptable to shoot people for nonthreatening, disobedient behavior. It happens accidentally all the time, but no, our nation's police are not running around shooting trespassers in the back.

for your job, and the only way you will keep your job is to accept a cut in
wages of 15%, this year.

haha, man, if your job is going to lose 15 percent of its wage because of illegal immigrants, I'd like to know what sector you're in! I'm definitely not sweating it, at all.

You asked if I support Death Penalty for illegal immigration.
With 20 million illegal aliens here now, the time for nice is OVER.
If you can persuade them to go home, you do that.....

You still didn't directly answer the question. Come out and say it: "I, EC, support imposing the death penalty without trial or any sort of process for the crime of illegal immigration." Then see how many Americans agree with you. I think the fact that you're hesitant to just say it outright indicates that you already know how unpopular that position is.

That's a great list of fears you have about immigrants there, but it's not supported by any hard data. There is no "illegal immigrant" tuition rate. I just saw one study in the news that showed english speaking teens have sex earlier in much larger numbers than spanish speaking ones. As for who has an affinity for "American values", I'll bet good money that there are many more people who consider the ACLU to be true-blue American than there are people who think that imposing the death penalty for illegal immigration is an "American ideal." I think you have no claim to speak for "American values" when you advocate the death penalty this way.

If someone invades your home at 4am, I would hope that the first thought on your mind isn't "Is this person an illegal immigrant!?". Likewise, I'd hope that you don't go around searching parks and work-sites for illegal immigrants with your rifle in hand. It's folks with wacko ideas like that who are going to do the rest of us responsible gunowners in.

If you want to be sure and turn your politically moderate and liberal non-gunowning friends off to gun rights forever, just tell them how important you think gun rights are, and then follow it up by telling them that you support shooting illegal immigrants on sight.

If I have your position on what should be done with illegal immigrants wrong, please do correct me.

 

[redhawk41]

Question

If your were caught by Mexican Border Patrol sneeking into Mexico from the US, would you be shot?

 

[shootinstudent]

Redhawk41,

Almost certainly not. There's no mexican policy of shooting people crossing from the north.

But even if there were, would that justify shooting someone who is coming in? I don't agree with "they did it, so it's right for us to do it too" analyses.

 

[redhawk41]

I don't agree with "they did it, so it's right for us to do it too" analyses.

you read WAY to much into a simple question.

i am researching the question myself, my gut instinct tells me you would be shot. shootinstudent, perhaps you would like to volunteer for an experiment?

i would also be interested in any other country that shoots illegal border crossers. i have a feeling there would be many. again, i will be researching.

As for "they did it, so it's right for us to do it too", i am not trying to use the argument that you are reading into my previous post. however i do believe that you will find armed troops at the border a historical norm, not a politically incorrect anomoly.

 

[shootinstudent]

Redhawk,

You're reading too much into what I'm asking. I asked if you thought that it would justify the US shooting immigrants, I didn't say that you thought that. I then pointed out how I feel about the "turnabouts fair play" argument.

We have armed troops on the border. So do most countries. There's a difference between armed troops and troops that are instructed to shoot all those crossing. I do not think you will any countries that shoot illegal immigrants on sight besides the old communist bloc countries, and they shot people for leaving too. Those are definitely not the folks I want to model immigration policies after.

Americans have no problem going in legally. It would not make sense to order troops to shoot people sneaking across when there is virtually no restriction on just walking in through the crossing.

 

[Edison Carter]

Such deliberate obtuseness!

We presently have 15 million + illegals in this country.

You can call them "immigrants" if you like, I call it an an invasion.

EVERY LAST ONE SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

Criminal employers should be prosecuted.

Laws prohibiting illegals on welfare should be enforced.

Local law enforcement should detain illegals for deportation.

Those who rent apartments to illegals should be prosecuted.

Our military should be deployed to turn back invaders.

Criminal invaders should be treated as hostile.

That is not a "Death penalty", that is protecting our borders.

If a punk 19 year old robs a liquor store, he goes to prison if he is captured,
if he gets shot dead while he commits the crime that is not a "death penalty",
that is more like... "oh well."

Clear enough for ya?

EC

 

[dasmi]

Edison Carter, we think alike.

 

[shootinstudent]

Clear enough for ya?

No. You did not directly answer the question. Instead, you cited what you think are the problems of illegal immigration, then said "they're hostile", without saying what you think those kind of "hostiles" should be treated like. So I'll ask again: Should illegal immigrants be shot summarily if they are found crossing the border? Will you answer this time?

As for the other points, well, you may have your opinion, but I side with Alan Greenspan on this one. America is getting old, and it's not having many kids. The workers have to come from somewhere, unless you want to be working manual labor at 80. A country cannot sustain itself with a huge retired population and no offsetting younger, working population. So not only would your plan cost billions in law enforcement resources, but it would deprive the country of young labor supplies that it absolutely needs to keep going.

 

[Edison Carter]

No, I think that was quite clear.

Deploy the military at the border.

Interdict, arrest, fingerprint, DNA test, photograph, identify,
deport, and treat subsequent violations with 5 years hard labor.

Live fire for those who do not surrender.

If you don't think the first and formost PURPOSE of the
military is defense of our borders against foreign invasion I'd like
you to tell us all what you think it is.

EC

 

[shootinstudent]

Live fire for those who do not surrender.

As I suspected. I think that position is absolutely against everything America is about. We do not live in a killer state, IMO. And, I think making this idea of yours public will only serve to fuel anti-gunner's wild claims that most gun owners are trigger happy racists. (No, I am not calling you a racist at all, I'm only pointing out what will be done with these kinds of positions.) As a gun owner and as an American, I absolutely do not support shooting people for a crime like illegal immigration.

Interdict, arrest, fingerprint, DNA test, photograph, identify,
deport, and treat subsequent violations with 5 years hard labor.

Sounds more like East Germany than the USA to me. But you are entitled to advocate America going in any direction you wish.

If you don't think the first and formost PURPOSE of the
military is defense of our borders against foreign invasion I'd like
you to tell us all what you think it is.

The primary purpose is to take the fight to our enemies. If this is done properly, then no one should ever show up at our doorstep.

But that's not relevant to this issue. Illegal immigrants are not an "army." They have no commander, they are not organized together by any common purpose, and they're not out (for the most part) to destroy the US. They're out to make more money. That's straight economics, and I think "invasion fears" are pure hype. There's no Mexican army headed for washington to burn the Capitol and institute the PRI-USA division. People coming over on their own individual initiatives to work is not an "invasion" by any sense of the term.

 

[Charley]

Shooting,
it seems you are absolutely intent on having the border issue turn into a shoot out.
Over and over, those in favor of a controled border (as you say you are) have given their ideas of how that can be enforced, including but not limited to a physical presense at the border, as well as strict and enforced laws against companies that hire illegals.
And yet, here we are again discussing whether it is okay to shoot people crossing the border.
This started out as a thread about violent threats made to the Minuteman Project by the MS-13 gang. But never mind that...
lets talk some more about whether it is okay to shoot people crossing the border.
You have been called many times on confusing the issues of illegal alien traffic with lawful immigration. Now, there is this added obsession with the "killing of people crossing the border."
It would be nice if that were the real issue, wouldn't it? All of this...just about a bunch of anti-immigrants looking for a chance to do a little killing? Nothing to do with the enforcement of law, the threat of terrorism, national security, evidence of elevated gang activity, drug trafficing, violent crime, outsourcing of jobs, lower wages, drainage of social welfare and programs, environmental damage, destruction of property, ect.
An estimated 4000 a day into Arizona alone.
An estimated 4000 unknown people with unknown motives crossing into Arizona each and every day.
This is our point:
We love and respect legal immigrants. So let's secure the border.
Shooting people is not a good thing. So let's secure the border.
Worth repeating.
Shooting people is not a good thing. So help us secure the border.