Mexico threatens MinuteMan Project....
- Thread starter JimDiver
- Start date
Not for shooting them
Unless they become violent themselves there is no need to shoot them. That said we sould have a military presense on the border to stop the flood of illegals. Now it seems if you are against illegal immigration that you are against hispanics or immigration which I am most certainly not. My two closest friends in this world are immigrants and I think we as a nation are better for it. They came here legally and busted their butts to not only attain US citizenship but to make a better life for themselves. Illegals sap the dignity of the hard work of hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants that come here and go through the long and ardious process of gaining their citizen status.
Illegals hurt this country and threaten our national security. You can call me racist or a xenophobe if you so desire, but I don't want to close our borders to the people who wish to join our great nation legally, just those that try to join us by first and foremost breaking our laws.
Unless they become violent themselves there is no need to shoot them. That said we sould have a military presense on the border to stop the flood of illegals. Now it seems if you are against illegal immigration that you are against hispanics or immigration which I am most certainly not. My two closest friends in this world are immigrants and I think we as a nation are better for it. They came here legally and busted their butts to not only attain US citizenship but to make a better life for themselves. Illegals sap the dignity of the hard work of hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants that come here and go through the long and ardious process of gaining their citizen status.
Illegals hurt this country and threaten our national security. You can call me racist or a xenophobe if you so desire, but I don't want to close our borders to the people who wish to join our great nation legally, just those that try to join us by first and foremost breaking our laws.
Shootinstudent. What is it about the word ILLEGAL that you do not understand? 
If someone does something illegal, then he is a CRIMINAL. Do you understand the word criminal?
I live within 50 miles of the Mexican Border. Within two miles of that border is my favorite fishing hole. The road going to that little lake runs parallel to the border. I can't count the times I've seen illegals crossing that road on their way into the U.S. I've also been shot at by a couple of those groups, probably while smuggling drugs.
I have friends I shoot with that are on the Border Patrol. In a nine month period in the Tucson Sector, they caught and deproted 600,000 illegal aliens, and that didn't count the drug smugglers. Arizona is currently the literal open door route for the illegals.
So you'll just have to forgive my anger at your bleeding heart sophistry on the poor illegal alien.
Paul B.
If someone does something illegal, then he is a CRIMINAL. Do you understand the word criminal?I live within 50 miles of the Mexican Border. Within two miles of that border is my favorite fishing hole. The road going to that little lake runs parallel to the border. I can't count the times I've seen illegals crossing that road on their way into the U.S.
I've also been shot at by a couple of those groups, probably while smuggling drugs.I have friends I shoot with that are on the Border Patrol. In a nine month period in the Tucson Sector, they caught and deproted 600,000 illegal aliens, and that didn't count the drug smugglers. Arizona is currently the literal open door route for the illegals.
So you'll just have to forgive my anger at your bleeding heart sophistry on the poor illegal alien.
Paul B.
shootinstudent
New member
I'd like for you to quote me please, just one quote, where I say that illegal immigration is not a crime. Where is my "bleeding heart sophistry"? Please quote specific language from my posts so I can respond to those claims.
What I have said is that it's not a crime that warrants summary execution. Do your border patrol friends think they should be allowed to shoot groups of illegal immigrants for no cause? That's my only beef with some of the posts I see here, NOT with different views on immigration. I too live in an area populated by illegal immigrants, and I have my own ideas about their impact and about measures to respond to the situation. What I am categorically against, and what I speak up about, are ONLY claims that illegal immigration is a crime that warrants perpetrators being shot on sight.
Charley,
I do not accuse everyone of wanting to shoot down illegals, and I respect your reasonable contributions to all of these discussions. I simply responded to the hyped up comments EC and others made, calling for machine guns and "treating them illegals like intruders into my home at 4am", which CLEARLY indicated that the posters were tending towards a "shoot illegals on sight" policy.
I feel obligated to respond to that kind of talk wherever I see it, because I'm a political moderate and as a gun owner, I find it very much objectionable that other gun owners might argue for shooting people in situations that do not represent a clear threat to the life of another human being. I abhor killing, and I support it only as a response to the most serious circumstances.
Edison Carter
New member
You think that this is not a “killer state”?!
Are you really that naive?
We are a killer species. Every state which exists rests on the bones of those who
went before. As individuals, as a nation, or as a government, we have not been
shy about killing.
It really doesn't matter what your opinion is about that, whether you deny it,
whether you are ashamed of it. It is a fact.
You deny that you are a "bleeding heart" you deny that you support
unrestricted open immigration.
Your opposition to any controls being discussed convinces me that you are....
disingenuous.
We presently have 15+ million illegal aliens here.
How many SHOULD we have? How will we know when we have enough?
How will we stop them Then?
Since you do not like deportation, enforcement of existing laws,
or really controlling the borders,
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
EC
Are you really that naive?
We are a killer species. Every state which exists rests on the bones of those who
went before. As individuals, as a nation, or as a government, we have not been
shy about killing.
It really doesn't matter what your opinion is about that, whether you deny it,
whether you are ashamed of it. It is a fact.
You deny that you are a "bleeding heart" you deny that you support
unrestricted open immigration.
Your opposition to any controls being discussed convinces me that you are....
disingenuous.
We presently have 15+ million illegal aliens here.
How many SHOULD we have? How will we know when we have enough?
How will we stop them Then?
Since you do not like deportation, enforcement of existing laws,
or really controlling the borders,
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
EC
shootinstudent
New member
I hate to break it to you, but the "pilgrims" came over two centuries or so before the foundation of the country. And yes, it was taken, and even at the time of the taking people realized that it was a problem. As far back as the 18th century there were already international laws regarding the capture of territory. So, no, it was not a brazen "let's kill everyone who doesn't belong" event.
We most certainly have been, especially in recent times. That's what has distinguished our great country from Fascist and Communist regimes. If you think killing to better the whole is permissible, how about going around executing all the residents at convalescent homes? Insane asylums?
Killing is a terrible thing, and most Americans recognize this. You can claim "we are a killer species" all you want, but put "summary execution" to a vote, and see how many Americans support you. That will tell you what a "killer species" we are.
Quote me please on the part where I said I do not support deportation, enforcing laws, or controlling the borders. I'd like to see that before you go any further with claims about what I do or do not support.
What would I do?
I'd issue permits to enough migrants to satisfy the needs of industry for low-cost, hard working labor, and then I'd institute heavy penalties for hiring anyone without those permits. That way, there are enough people to satisfy the economic needs of America, and there's no incentive to give money to those who continue to break the law on top of the permit process.
houston, 4th largest city in the country. 40% hispanic,29% white,25%black
why is it 40% hispanic? ILLEGAL immigration. that makes hispanics the majority, whites and blacks the minoritys. time to break up LULAC, time for the white people to have a group devoted to them, i propose LUWAC, League of United White American Citizens, i am a minority, i want my group!
i say that half in jest, but somethings gotta be done, its way outta hand.
why is it 40% hispanic? ILLEGAL immigration. that makes hispanics the majority, whites and blacks the minoritys. time to break up LULAC, time for the white people to have a group devoted to them, i propose LUWAC, League of United White American Citizens, i am a minority, i want my group!
i say that half in jest, but somethings gotta be done, its way outta hand.
To whom it may concern:
Re this ongoing discussion of illegal immigration, largely though not exclusively from Mexico, the Mexican government, outside specific treaty obligations, are there any such, has no particular responsibility or duty regarding the enforcement of U.S. laws, immigration or otherwise, especially when the government here has not displayed any particular concern, as evidenced by action, real action dircted toward securing the borders of this country, from illegal immigration. If I'm missing a salient point of two, let me know.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, worse things than this can happen, this illegal immigration from Mexico toward and or to the U.S. serves, for the government of Mexico, as a most convenient SAFETY VALVE, without which the government of Mexico, whichever government or party happens to be in power, might have to make some real efforts in the direction of improving things for their population.
Given the fact that such action would cause some degree of economic discomfort and or inconvenience to "The Powers That Be" in Mexico, do not try holding your breath waiting for the government of Mexico to undertake such action. The only way that this situation might be mitigated is for the government of this country, whichever party might hold the reins at any given time, to take serious action directed at securing our borders. Of course, such action might well cause our own "Powers That Be", a degree of economic inconvenience or discomfort, so don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen here either.
No, I don't have an answer to questions posed by the above analysis, which could turn out to be dead wrong, I don't think it is, but I guess it could well be. However, unless or until both be governments quit lying and start to deal honestly with existing sitations, no resolution will be obtained.
This follows through all the way, from illegal immigration to and including drug smuggling, where it trns out that while the government, the police and others in Mexico might well be "on the take", similar considerations apply in the U.S., it is in the U.S. where drug peddlers find a large number of customers.
Re this ongoing discussion of illegal immigration, largely though not exclusively from Mexico, the Mexican government, outside specific treaty obligations, are there any such, has no particular responsibility or duty regarding the enforcement of U.S. laws, immigration or otherwise, especially when the government here has not displayed any particular concern, as evidenced by action, real action dircted toward securing the borders of this country, from illegal immigration. If I'm missing a salient point of two, let me know.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, worse things than this can happen, this illegal immigration from Mexico toward and or to the U.S. serves, for the government of Mexico, as a most convenient SAFETY VALVE, without which the government of Mexico, whichever government or party happens to be in power, might have to make some real efforts in the direction of improving things for their population.
Given the fact that such action would cause some degree of economic discomfort and or inconvenience to "The Powers That Be" in Mexico, do not try holding your breath waiting for the government of Mexico to undertake such action. The only way that this situation might be mitigated is for the government of this country, whichever party might hold the reins at any given time, to take serious action directed at securing our borders. Of course, such action might well cause our own "Powers That Be", a degree of economic inconvenience or discomfort, so don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen here either.
No, I don't have an answer to questions posed by the above analysis, which could turn out to be dead wrong, I don't think it is, but I guess it could well be. However, unless or until both be governments quit lying and start to deal honestly with existing sitations, no resolution will be obtained.
This follows through all the way, from illegal immigration to and including drug smuggling, where it trns out that while the government, the police and others in Mexico might well be "on the take", similar considerations apply in the U.S., it is in the U.S. where drug peddlers find a large number of customers.
this explains why there is such a huge population of native americans in the united states. to get back on topic:
many native americans may have foreseen the eventual "invasion" of their home, and took up arms. unfortunately they were behind technologically and lost out. many americans (non-native?) are now trying to protect their home from what they foresee as eventual "invasion". if this is wrong, was it wrong what the native americans did trying to protect their home?
this statement reeks of "know-it-all".
shootinstudent
New member
Redhawk41,
The indians here were mainly wiped out by disease. That's why there aren't so many. And, you didn't address my point, which was that it was recognized as a legal and moral issue at the time. The colonists recognized that their treatment of the indians had been unlawful and struggled to justify it. That's not a "kill and take" attitude to me.
Now, there were cases where Indians raided farms and shot down unarmed and hapless colonists. Was it wrong? You bet it was. The comparison isn't even remotely close to what's going on now.
The colonists didn't come alone, they came with armies that helped them to control the territories they lived in. There is no Mexican army coming with the illegal immigrants trying to supplant US law in favor of Mexican law. Neither are the immigrants taking over tracts of land and declaring it sovereign.
A better comparison would be: How would you feel about the native americans if the Europeans had come in and tried to work for the indians, picking their corn, in exchange for pay, and the indians decided to start shooting europeans at the dock?
A natural response to sarcastic lines about the pilgrims. No offense intended.
Alan,
I agree with your analysis 100 percent, I think you are right on the money with this comment:
The indians here were mainly wiped out by disease. That's why there aren't so many. And, you didn't address my point, which was that it was recognized as a legal and moral issue at the time. The colonists recognized that their treatment of the indians had been unlawful and struggled to justify it. That's not a "kill and take" attitude to me.
Now, there were cases where Indians raided farms and shot down unarmed and hapless colonists. Was it wrong? You bet it was. The comparison isn't even remotely close to what's going on now.
The colonists didn't come alone, they came with armies that helped them to control the territories they lived in. There is no Mexican army coming with the illegal immigrants trying to supplant US law in favor of Mexican law. Neither are the immigrants taking over tracts of land and declaring it sovereign.
A better comparison would be: How would you feel about the native americans if the Europeans had come in and tried to work for the indians, picking their corn, in exchange for pay, and the indians decided to start shooting europeans at the dock?
A natural response to sarcastic lines about the pilgrims. No offense intended.
Alan,
I agree with your analysis 100 percent, I think you are right on the money with this comment:
"A natural response to sarcastic lines about the pilgrims."
i wasn't trying to be sarcastic. i am trying to point out that what started as a few folks looking for a better life quickly turned into a full scale take over of a previously occupied continent.
as for recognition of the legal and moral issue, it is the same today which is why we are having this discussion. the fact that it was recognized at the time did little to prevent the eventual desctruction of the native american peoples.
"Neither are the immigrants taking over tracts of land and declaring it sovereign"
Certain fringe groups stated goal is just this, Aztlan. if so many immigrants are willing to come to america without any regard for the immigration policy, and a few on the fringe begin a battle for the sovereignity of Aztlan, will the illegal immigrants be on the side of america? they have already shown disdain for americas laws i am sure that some will, but i am also sure that many won't.
i wasn't trying to be sarcastic. i am trying to point out that what started as a few folks looking for a better life quickly turned into a full scale take over of a previously occupied continent.
as for recognition of the legal and moral issue, it is the same today which is why we are having this discussion. the fact that it was recognized at the time did little to prevent the eventual desctruction of the native american peoples.
"Neither are the immigrants taking over tracts of land and declaring it sovereign"
Certain fringe groups stated goal is just this, Aztlan. if so many immigrants are willing to come to america without any regard for the immigration policy, and a few on the fringe begin a battle for the sovereignity of Aztlan, will the illegal immigrants be on the side of america? they have already shown disdain for americas laws i am sure that some will, but i am also sure that many won't.
shootinstudent
New member
We have covered this on another thread. No, this is not Aztlan's goal. Aztlan is a Chicano nationalist group. By definition, Chicanos are american born. In addition, if you'll look back to the articles you posted, Aztlan does NOT call for a return to Mexico. It wants to create an entirely new country, taking a piece of the US and a piece of Mexico to do it. Aztlan is anti-Mexican and anti-US.
The idea that there will be a battle for sovereignty in which illegal immigrants (Mexican) will choose sides to destroy their own country is ridiculous. I'm not sure how else to address that. Aztlan does not have an army, and it wants to ruin Mexico by taking away its most productive states.
if the goal of Aztlan is not sovereign territory, than please tell me what it is.
color me confused here, i have no recollection posting any articles concerning Aztlan. could you point me to those posts
i never said that it did
ie, sovereign territory. so the goal of Aztlan is sovereign territory. i am glad we are on the same page here.
Chi·ca·no - A Mexican American.
so which are they, mexican or american? they have both in the name but allegiance to neither? or is it Azltan? if they are american born, they must be american, so where did the 'mexican' part come from? parents were immigrant (legal or illegal)?
this describes the american civil war to a tee
I'm not sure if anyone has said anything about this because I didn't read every post, but here goes.
The Mexican government seems to think N.A.F.T.A. includes their citizens.
Also to para-phrase Congressman Tom Tancredo Colorado (R)
I have no problem with people who come here to be an American. I don't like the people who come here and do not want to be an American.
The Mexican government seems to think N.A.F.T.A. includes their citizens.
Also to para-phrase Congressman Tom Tancredo Colorado (R)
I have no problem with people who come here to be an American. I don't like the people who come here and do not want to be an American.
MacLeod
Right on the money.
In the new Pan American state it will include their citizens. Flooding our country with them now speeds up and consolidates the process.
You will notice that in any discussion on this subject, many people throw their hands up and say, in effect, "Well, there's just so many of them it would be impractical to try and get rid of them now".
Wait until their numbers double, treble then quadruple.
Right on the money.
In the new Pan American state it will include their citizens. Flooding our country with them now speeds up and consolidates the process.
You will notice that in any discussion on this subject, many people throw their hands up and say, in effect, "Well, there's just so many of them it would be impractical to try and get rid of them now".
Wait until their numbers double, treble then quadruple.