WashingtonTimes: Minutemen not watching over funds

[The 12th Commandment]

Unfortunately sending them home simply offers them another opportunity to repeat the offense and maybe get away with it the next time. It's similar to an analogy I used around here the other day.... You have two muggers. One gets caught and sent to jail. The other gets two bullets in the chest, one in the head, and a permanent dirt nap. I can guarantee you one will never commit a crime again. I can almost guarantee you the other one WILL.

In regards to the stealing to eat thing, I personally believe that if you've put yourself in a position that you need to steal to eat, you're probably reaping the rewards of poor choices in the past and you've earned your position in life.

As for your comment about ignorance and intollerance.... I am a very intollerant person. I always have been and I always will be. As for the "ignorance" part.... I think that probably depends on whether or not we agree on what is and isn't worth knowing. There's a lot of information out there these days that isn't worth knowing for one reason or another. I attempt to keep myself as ignorant of that information as humanly possible.

Look we don't need to rehash the entire immigration issue again, I agree with you on most of it. We do need to secure the border, and we need to reform the process for allowing people to come in legally. But the vast majority of poverty stricken people on the face of the earth are that way not because of any wrong they did, but the unlucky fact of where they were born. Calling them names because of this condition which IS out of their control is ignorant. There - read that.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

That's not what you have said in the past. Well, I guess I have to look through the archives now

I don't believe so. I believe you're going to find that what I've said is that I am against all ILLEGAL immigration and any form of plan or agreement that allows illegal aliens to stay in this country or to obtain legal immigrant status, even after returning to their country of origin.

Obviously I may have slipped up at some point in the past and not made that position clear enough, but I don't believe you're going to find anything where I've said there shouldn't be any immigration allowed at all.

[B.Lloyd]

I've got a real simple fix for that problem. Deputize these folks and just let them shoot these worthless sacks of **** illegally crossing the border. The next group might stop and think for just a second if they have to walk past the bloated, rotting corpses of their countrymen to illegally enter this country. That'd provide a nice solid opportunity for the Minutemen to help them join their brethren in the afterlife.

I agree, WTF is the President doing in not sending troops over to the border? They should send the National Guard over there and be authorized to open fire at a certain point along the border.

[swaroopm]

Like the "Minutemen," I think that the govt needs to do more to reduce and discourage illegal immigration. At the same time, I agree with the critics of the "Minutemen" that these "Minutemen" are, well, not very bright. I mean, I don't think their ranks include many Rhodes Scholars. And, lo and behold, they manage to screw everything up (as evidenced in part by their apparent financial problems). Maybe they should rename their organization "Minutemen: The Beverly Hillbillies Meet Border Control." It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unconstructive.

But claiming they are sacks of **** goes beyond that.

We do need to secure the border, and we need to reform the process for allowing people to come in legally. But the vast majority of poverty stricken people on the face of the earth are that way not because of any wrong they did, but the unlucky fact of where they were born. Calling them names because of this condition which IS out of their control is ignorant. There - read that.

Well put, KAOSkins. It's disappointing that some people are so arrogant and ignorant that they think they are better than other people just because of where they happened to be born.

[swaroopm]

I want the borders secured, all immigration documented, and I want people to prove what it is they have to offer the United States before we just throw the gates open and allow everyone into the estate to eat the feast, drink the alcohol, steal the silverware and china, engage in carnal activities with the Lady of the house, and set themselves up in the master suite like they own the place at the expense of those of us who have worked so hard to make it what it is today.

And what, pray tell, have you done that has helped make the US what it is today?

Also, is that more or less valuable than the contributions of the illegal immigrants that, for example, make up 60-70% of the farm labor in California (as reported by the LA Times) or serve in our armed forces?

I do think our government needs to do more to enforce the law and to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, but it's outlandish and ill-informed to suggest that illegal immigrants are all a bunch of bums and extortionists.

Then again, I also believe that there are a large number of people BORN here who shouldn't be granted the rights that go with the PRIVLEDGE of American Citizenship, so that's probably part of it as well.

Do you include yourself among the group that should be denied rights?

[swaroopm]

I've got a real simple fix for that problem. Deputize these folks and just let them shoot these worthless sacks of **** illegally crossing the border. The next group might stop and think for just a second if they have to walk past the bloated, rotting corpses of their countrymen to illegally enter this country. That'd provide a nice solid opportunity for the Minutemen to help them join their brethren in the afterlife.

I agree, WTF is the President doing in not sending troops over to the border? They should send the National Guard over there and be authorized to open fire at a certain point along the border.

These comments are stupid and ignorant - like the Minutemen, these comments contribute nothing that will help stem the tide of illegal immigration.

1. Have either of you ever been to the border? How long do you think your "just shoot them" policy would be in place before an American was shot? How many Americans would have to be shot before you decided your policy was a bad idea? Having been to the border myself (in California, Arizona, and Washington state), I can tell you that many of the Americans living near the border look very similar to the illegals who are crossing it. How do you expect the Border Patrol to know who to shoot? Before suggesting stupid ideas for how our border should be secured, you should visit the border (and, like KAOSkins, talk to some Border Patrol agents) to get a better idea of what needs to be done (and can be done) to secure it.

2. Have either of you ever talked to an illegal immigrant? Have you even read anything about the experience they go through? Do you have any idea how many of these people die along the way, long before they even reach the border? And you think the threat of getting shot is going to do anything to deter them? You obviously have no idea of the risks these people are willing to take to get here. I've met a guy who evaded the Border Patrol by clinging to the underside of a car. If these people will spend all their life savings on the travel, and then walk for days through a bleak and unforgiving desert or spend weeks cramped in the dark cargo hold of an oceangoing ship, they'll certainly take the risk of getting shot.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Like the "Minutemen," I think that the govt needs to do more to reduce and discourage illegal immigration. At the same time, I agree with the critics of the "Minutemen" that these "Minutemen" are, well, not very bright. I mean, I don't think their ranks include many Rhodes Scholars. And, lo and behold, they manage to screw everything up (as evidenced in part by their apparent financial problems). Maybe they should rename their organization "Minutemen: The Beverly Hillbillies Meet Border Control." It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unconstructive.

I don't believe the "Minutemen" need many Rhodes Scholars in their group. They're not a debate team. Their job is very simple and straightforward. If the US Border Patrol (and the government in general) would get out of their way and allow them to pick up the responsibility that the US Government has decided to ignore, I think we'd be much better off.

Well put, KAOSkins. It's disappointing that some people are so arrogant and ignorant that they think they are better than other people just because of where they happened to be born.

It's even more disappointing to people like me that more so-called "Americans" can not or will not make a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad and act on those distinctions. THAT'S what I consider ignorant.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

And what, pray tell, have you done that has helped make the US what it is today?

How about this... I work. I pay taxes. I have a loyalty to this country and no other. I would be willing to kill and/or die for this country. I don't suck off the tit of public assistance or tell society that it has to help me just because I was born with a "handicap".

Also, is that more or less valuable than the contributions of the illegal immigrants that, for example, make up 60-70% of the farm labor in California (as reported by the LA Times) or serve in our armed forces?

Yes it is, in my mind. I work LEGALLY. I don't take jobs that those lazy-*ss ****s and b*tches on welfare in Kali should be doing. As for those illegals serving in the armed forces, they should be court-marshalled and executed in my mind. The moment you cross the border illegally you cannot do anything positive in this country, in my mind. That initial sin taints everything you do thereafter.

I do think our government needs to do more to enforce the law and to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, but it's outlandish and ill-informed to suggest that illegal immigrants are all a bunch of bums and extortionists.?

That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. It is not my opinion and never will be.

Do you include yourself among the group that should be denied rights?

No, though I would include one of my roommates, several of my cousins, and about half of the people I went to high school and/or college or have worked with over the years on that list.

[The 12th Commandment]

It's even more disappointing to people like me that more so-called "Americans" can not or will not make a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad and act on those distinctions. THAT'S what I consider ignorant.

You're not being very honest. I have said it a hundred on this board, we need to secure the border and create a situation where immigrants can come across legally in a reasonable period of time. This is for the sake of us "Americans" and the good future Americans who want to come here. In your black and white world perhaps their transgressions are equal to a murderer or rapist. How disappointing it must also be to you, that the rest of us don't share this lack of depth perception. We don't kill people or refer to them as excrement when they are following the ingrained drive to survive that we all share. We understand that what they have done is wrong TO A DEGREE, but accept the fact that we are part of problem as well. We should be part of the solution.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

These comments are stupid and ignorant - like the Minutemen, these comments contribute nothing that will help stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Ok. So they've done about the same amount as the entire Federal government and border state governments have done over the last century. Sounds like we're in pretty good company. The difference being that the government actually has a CONSITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

1. Have either of you ever been to the border? How long do you think your "just shoot them" policy would be in place before an American was shot? How many Americans would have to be shot before you decided your policy was a bad idea? Having been to the border myself (in California, Arizona, and Washington state), I can tell you that many of the Americans living near the border look very similar to the illegals who are crossing it. How do you expect the Border Patrol to know who to shoot? Before suggesting stupid ideas for how our border should be secured, you should visit the border (and, like KAOSkins, talk to some Border Patrol agents) to get a better idea of what needs to be done (and can be done) to secure it.

The closest I've been to the border is San Antonio, TX. It's a very nice city and about as close to Mexico as I ever care to be.

I figure it would take 48-72 hours for the first American/Minuteman to be shot. I'm talking about stationing these people right along the border, maybe 50-60 yards inside US Territory. Any American citizen dumb enough to walk through that zone gets what they deserve in the way of getting shot.

The Border Patrol/Minutemen would shoot anyone they can see crossing the border. It's not a terribly difficult concept to understand.

You want to know what can be done to secure the border.... Build a 15 foot tall, 5 foot thick solid concrete wall topped with concentina wire and United States Marines. Build it so it extends another 10-12 feet below grade as well. Build it about 50 yards inside American territory and sow that area between the border and the wall with land mines. At the border itself install a chain-link fence with signs (in ENGLISH) indicating that anyone trying to cross the fence will be summarily shot and left to die where they fall. Add some electronic surveilance and ground monitors. Additionally we rotate Marines and Army personnel through duty there to ensure that they can pull the trigger on another human being before sending them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. How does that sound to you?

2. Have either of you ever talked to an illegal immigrant? Have you even read anything about the experience they go through? Do you have any idea how many of these people die along the way, long before they even reach the border? And you think the threat of getting shot is going to do anything to deter them? You obviously have no idea of the risks these people are willing to take to get here. I've met a guy who evaded the Border Patrol by clinging to the underside of a car. If these people will spend all their life savings on the travel, and then walk for days through a bleak and unforgiving desert or spend weeks cramped in the dark cargo hold of an oceangoing ship, they'll certainly take the risk of getting shot.

I can happily say that I don't believe I've ever spoken to an illegal alien. If I were to do so, my first action would be to attempt to contact the local INS office and report them. I couldn't care any less how difficult it is for them to get in here. It's still too easy. Would they be willing to risk getting shot... probably. I just guarantee you that they'd only ever get caught once under the system I have proposed. Unlike the system we currently have where many of these smugglers and the BP officers are on a first-name basis of familiarity.

[Fred Jones]

Mass, you live in your own world. Immigration is one of the subjects I agree with the right that we need to not let them in and kick out the ones that are here. The U.S. needs to crack down hard on the individuals that bring illegals into this country.

However, the fact that you have never talked to an illegal alien, never been to the border and probably never served in the armed forces leads me to believe you sit in your little corner of the world and complain about society without actually getting up and doing your small part in trying to fix it yourself.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You're not being very honest. I have said it a hundred on this board, we need to secure the border and create a situation where immigrants can come across legally in a reasonable period of time. This is for the sake of us "Americans" and the good future Americans who want to come here. In your black and white world perhaps their transgressions are equal to a murderer or rapist. How disappointing it must also be to you, that the rest of us don't share this lack of depth perception. We don't kill people or refer to them as excrement when they are following the ingrained drive to survive that we all share. We understand that what they have done is wrong TO A DEGREE, but accept the fact that we are part of problem as well. We should be part of the solution.

Actually, I'm about the only one being totally honest. I'm not the one trying to sugar-coat the issue or weigh it down with the unnecesary crap of "degrees" or "depth". As you mentioned, I live in a Black vs. White world. I always have and always will. Until the majority of Americans figure out how to live in that world as well, this country is going to continue it's rapid decline into the disgusting, morally corrupt cess pool we're becoming. At the point we reach that pool we'll be sucked under and there will be no place in the world for those of us who see the world correctly to live anymore. At that point the world might as well end, because there will be no redeeming value to any part of it anymore

[Mass_SkinsFan]

However, the fact that you have never talked to an illegal alien, never been to the border and probably never served in the armed forces leads me to believe you sit in your little corner of the world and complain about society without actually getting up and doing your small part in trying to fix it yourself.

So far as I am concerned it should be a felony to knowingly interact with or assist in any way a known illegal alien. If I were to meet one it would be a very short interaction. At the point I knew they were illegal the only interaction would be between me and INS. Not between me and the illegal.

I have never had an interest in going to the Mexico border. There's nothing there I have an interest in seeing or doing, so why would I bother to go there? To prove to myself what I already know?... that it's a long stretch of largely empty nothingness that needs to be secured.

My lack of military experience is due to the US Military's decision that my knee injury, birth defect and other medical conditions do not make me suitable for front-line combat duty. On three different occassions I have been turned down by the US Army and/or the USMC when I have looked at joining those services. On the most recent occassion I was told that I MIGHT be able to get admitted to the Army for a combat-support or non-combatant role. I thanked the recruiter for his time and told him I wasn't interested in a non-combat MOS.

[swaroopm]

I don't believe the "Minutemen" need many Rhodes Scholars in their group. They're not a debate team. Their job is very simple and straightforward. If the US Border Patrol (and the government in general) would get out of their way and allow them to pick up the responsibility that the US Government has decided to ignore, I think we'd be much better off.

Uh, did you forget what started this thread? If these "Minutemen" can't get organized enough to keep track of their own money, I don't know how we can expect them to defend the border, let alone to do a better job than our government and Border Patrol are already doing. I agree the govt and Border Patrol need to do a better job, but that doesn't mean they're not the ones for the job.

It's even more disappointing to people like me that more so-called "Americans" can not or will not make a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad and act on those distinctions. THAT'S what I consider ignorant.

Those who disagree with you don't necessarily have any difficulty making a distinction between right and wrong or acting on those decisions. It's just that we have a different idea of what constitutes right and wrong.

And what, pray tell, have you done that has helped make the US what it is today?

How about this... I work. I pay taxes. I have a loyalty to this country and no other. I would be willing to kill and/or die for this country. I don't suck off the tit of public assistance or tell society that it has to help me just because I was born with a "handicap".

You said that you were one of those who has "helped make the US what it is today." The statement "I would be willing to kill and/or die for this country" is not an answer to my question, since that is not actually anything you have done. As for the rest of your reply, that's great. I agree that the country would be better off if, like you and me, everyone would work, pay taxes, and sustain themselves independently. However, I think it's a stretch to go from the contributions described in your response (which should be expected of every American) to say that you and I have "made the country what it is today." It's possible to categorize the illegal activities of illegal immigrants without being presumptuous about ourselves.

I do think our government needs to do more to enforce the law and to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, but it's outlandish and ill-informed to suggest that illegal immigrants are all a bunch of bums and extortionists.

That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. It is not my opinion and never will be.

A great number of illegal immigrants take up low-paying and difficult jobs in this country, and thus in my opinion they should not all be characterized as bums and extortionists. I don't understand how working 16-hour-days picking fruit in hot fields constitutes coming "into the estate to eat the feast, drink the alcohol, steal the silverware and china, engage in carnal activities with the Lady of the house, and set themselves up in the master suite like they own the place." As I have tried to make clear, I am as opposed to illegal immigration as anyone. They are breaking the law, a law that exists for good reasons, and that illegal activity should not be condoned or supported. At the same time, there is no need to demonize them or describe them inaccurately.

Ok. So they've done about the same amount as the entire Federal government and border state governments have done over the last century. Sounds like we're in pretty good company. The difference being that the government actually has a CONSITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Do you really think the "Minutemen" have done as much to stop illegal immigration as the govt has done in the past century? Wow. How many more illegal immigrants do you think would be here now if not for the existing efforts of the govt? How many people does the Border Patrol detain and expatriate each year?

I have never had an interest in going to the Mexico border. There's nothing there I have an interest in seeing or doing, so why would I bother to go there? To prove to myself what I already know?... that it's a long stretch of largely empty nothingness that needs to be secured.

The closest I've been to the border is San Antonio, TX. It's a very nice city and about as close to Mexico as I ever care to be.

I figure it would take 48-72 hours for the first American/Minuteman to be shot. I'm talking about stationing these people right along the border, maybe 50-60 yards inside US Territory. Any American citizen dumb enough to walk through that zone gets what they deserve in the way of getting shot.

You "already know" it's a long stretch of largely empty nothingness? I guess you're not interested in visiting our border towns like San Diego, El Paso, and Laredo, let alone Big Bend National Park (http://www.nps.gov/bibe/), Organ Pipe Cactus Nat'l Monument (http://www.nps.gov/orpi/), or Coronado National Memorial (http://www.nps.gov/coro/), where I can tell you that the scenery and hiking are quite nice. I don't know that we should have to risk getting shot to visit our own national parks.

The Border Patrol/Minutemen would shoot anyone they can see crossing the border. It's not a terribly difficult concept to understand.

You want to know what can be done to secure the border.... Build a 15 foot tall, 5 foot thick solid concrete wall topped with concentina wire and United States Marines. Build it so it extends another 10-12 feet below grade as well. Build it about 50 yards inside American territory and sow that area between the border and the wall with land mines. At the border itself install a chain-link fence with signs (in ENGLISH) indicating that anyone trying to cross the fence will be summarily shot and left to die where they fall. Add some electronic surveilance and ground monitors. Additionally we rotate Marines and Army personnel through duty there to ensure that they can pull the trigger on another human being before sending them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. How does that sound to you?

In fact, I do find this concept difficult to understand. The US-Mexico border is 1950 miles. You propose stationing Marines and Army personnel along the border; supposing you had one every 100 yards (football field), it would take about 34000 military personnel to cover the border, about the number we currently have in Korea. That does seem practical. Of course, most of the time these personnel would just be sitting there, because it's not like the illegal immigrants would just come rushing at the giant wall topped with soldiers. Speaking of the Great Wall of America, how much would it cost (and how long would it take) to build a 25-foot wall for 1950 miles? To get some idea, review the plans, timeline, and cost of the 426-mile wall that Israel is building. Note that Israel is not even building a concrete wall on many portions of its barrier. Either way, if our 1950-mile wall extends 12 feet below ground, how long would it take the illegals to build tunnels 15 feet below ground? I'm guessing: "not long."

I guess that in response to the question "How does that sound to you," I'd have to say all this sounds somewhat simplistic. (The same thing I'd say to the "Minutemen" about their scheme.)

I can happily say that I don't believe I've ever spoken to an illegal alien. If I were to do so, my first action would be to attempt to contact the local INS office and report them.

:laugh: Odds are, you have spoken to an illegal immigrant; you just didn't know it.

I couldn't care any less how difficult it is for them to get in here. It's still too easy. Would they be willing to risk getting shot... probably.

I agree that it is too easy. However, regarding the question of whether they would risk getting shot...probably? No, certainly. Considering the journey that some of them go through, getting shot at the border would be among the least of their concerns. So, I doubt your "shoot to kill" scheme would achieve the deterrent effect that you think it would.

I just guarantee you that they'd only ever get caught once under the system I have proposed.

I agree that under your system, they'd only be caught once. Oh, one more question about the "shoot to kill" approach - does this also apply to children?

Unlike the system we currently have where many of these smugglers and the BP officers are on a first-name basis of familiarity.

I don't doubt that this is the case for some smugglers and Border Patrol officers, but can you provide any reference or source to support this statement?

So, where does all this get us? Even if the "Minutemen" and the "shoot to kill" proposal and the incredibly expensive "Great Wall of America" proposal were all successful, we'd only stop (at most) about half of illegal immigrants. That's because half of them come over the border legally. See: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Uh, did you forget what started this thread? If these "Minutemen" can't get organized enough to keep track of their own money, I don't know how we can expect them to defend the border, let alone to do a better job than our government and Border Patrol are already doing. I agree the govt and Border Patrol need to do a better job, but that doesn't mean they're not the ones for the job.

I'm sorry but it doesn't take an actuarial degree to line up the front and rear sights with the target and squeeze the trigger. I don't expect them to defend the border. I expect them to simply sit in wait and execute their assigned duty if anyone attempts to cross the border in their area. The government doesn't do ANY job of stopping illegal immigration. They haven't in years. So anything that the Minutemen actually did would be an improvement over what is currently NOT being done.

A great number of illegal immigrants take up low-paying and difficult jobs in this country, and thus in my opinion they should not all be characterized as bums and extortionists. I don't understand how working 16-hour-days picking fruit in hot fields constitutes coming "into the estate to eat the feast, drink the alcohol, steal the silverware and china, engage in carnal activities with the Lady of the house, and set themselves up in the master suite like they own the place." As I have tried to make clear, I am as opposed to illegal immigration as anyone. They are breaking the law, a law that exists for good reasons, and that illegal activity should not be condoned or supported. At the same time, there is no need to demonize them or describe them inaccurately.

Those low-paying and difficult jobs should be filled by the lazy-ass bums stealing money from me in the way of WELFARE and other social programs. THAT'S who should be picking the strawberries and doing these other tasks. NOT illegal aliens. I know you're opposed to illegal immigration. Unfortunately you don't seem interested in actually doing anything to stop it. Much like the US government.

Do you really think the "Minutemen" have done as much to stop illegal immigration as the govt has done in the past century? Wow. How many more illegal immigrants do you think would be here now if not for the existing efforts of the govt? How many people does the Border Patrol detain and expatriate each year?

As I mentioned before, the US Government hasn't done anything to stop illegal immigration in the last century. The Border Patrol simply runs a catch and release program. The ones they catch today will be across the border again tomorrow.

You "already know" it's a long stretch of largely empty nothingness? I guess you're not interested in visiting our border towns like San Diego, El Paso, and Laredo, let alone Big Bend National Park, Organ Pipe Cactus Nat'l Monument or Coronado National Memorial, where I can tell you that the scenery and hiking are quite nice. I don't know that we should have to risk getting shot to visit our own national parks.

I have no interest in visiting any of those towns. San Diego is in CA, a state I have no interest in visiting at all. The only thing I would have ever been interested in visiting in the entire state would be Alcatraz (the way prisons SHOULD be run). El Paso and Laredo are not places I have any interest in visiting either. As for the National Parks... so long as you're on the proper side of the wall, there wouldn't be a problem.

In fact, I do find this concept difficult to understand. The US-Mexico border is 1950 miles. You propose stationing Marines and Army personnel along the border; supposing you had one every 100 yards (football field), it would take about 34000 military personnel to cover the border, about the number we currently have in Korea. That does seem practical. Of course, most of the time these personnel would just be sitting there, because it's not like the illegal immigrants would just come rushing at the giant wall topped with soldiers. Speaking of the Great Wall of America, how much would it cost (and how long would it take) to build a 25-foot wall for 1950 miles? To get some idea, review the plans, timeline, and cost of the 426-mile wall that Israel is building. Note that Israel is not even building a concrete wall on many portions of its barrier. Either way, if our 1950-mile wall extends 12 feet below ground, how long would it take the illegals to build tunnels 15 feet below ground? I'm guessing: "not long."

I guess that in response to the question "How does that sound to you," I'd have to say all this sounds somewhat simplistic. (The same thing I'd say to the "Minutemen" about their scheme.)

Would it be long, expensive and costly to man?... Definitely. However we pay for it with the monies we've been giving to these aliens and other worthless sacks of flesh in terms of foreign aid, welfare, medicare, etc... We staff it WITH the troops from Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.. when we pull them back inside the US borders and tell the rest of the world to go screw. I already discussed the installation of electronic surveilance monitors to detect mining/tunneling attempts.

[edit]If you think that one would be problematic, imagine the probably 3500 mile long one we need to build along the border with CANADA.[/edit]

:laugh: Odds are, you have spoken to an illegal immigrant; you just didn't know it.

Which is a good thing for them, because if I had known, they would have been turned over to INS.

I agree that it is too easy. However, regarding the question of whether they would risk getting shot...probably? No, certainly. Considering the journey that some of them go through, getting shot at the border would be among the least of their concerns. So, I doubt your "shoot to kill" scheme would achieve the deterrent effect that you think it would.

It would be quite a deterrent. Unlike current policy where we simply toss these illegals back across the border to make another attempt the next day, they'd get their ticket for an eternal dirt nap punched and we would never have to deal with them again.

I agree that under your system, they'd only be caught once. Oh, one more question about the "shoot to kill" approach - does this also apply to children?

Yes it does. Men. Women. Children. Any illegal attempting to enter the country.

So, where does all this get us? Even if the "Minutemen" and the "shoot to kill" proposal and the incredibly expensive "Great Wall of America" proposal were all successful, we'd only stop (at most) about half of illegal immigrants. That's because half of them come over the border legally.

That's a separate issue for which I have other suggestions on dealing with. That's for a different thread though, I think.

[swaroopm]

I think MSF and I have made our views clear on these "Minutemen," so I'm not responding to everything in the most recent post. If there is something that does require a response beyond my comments below, I will be happy to offer a response. I think anyone reading the thread can already get a clear idea of where MSF and I differ, and can draw their own conclusions about what is reasonable and sensible. Both MSF and I agree that illegal immigration needs to be stopped, but we disagree on what measures should be taken to do that.

I know you're opposed to illegal immigration. Unfortunately you don't seem interested in actually doing anything to stop it. Much like the US government.

I agree that the US government has not taken appropriate measures to stem illegal immigration. I think our govt would rather kowtow to the corporate (e.g. agribusiness) interests that benefit from illegal immigration than take steps necessary to secure the border.

It is absurd to suggest that I "don't seem interested in actually doing anything to stop it." Just because I do not agree with your proposals does not mean I don't want to do anything. Similarly, as I said in a previous post, just because I do not agree with your proposals does not mean I have "any difficulty making a distinction between right and wrong or acting on those decisions." Your assumptions are incorrect and your presumption is unappreciated.

Because I am opposed to illegal immigration, unlike our government, I am interested in "actually doing" something about it. I would prefer measures that I think would be more effective (and more cost-effective) than the "Minutemen," the "shoot to kill" policy, and the Great Wall of America. All these measures target the immigrants themselves, poor people who (since they often don't speak English and they often have dark skin) make easy targets, literally and figuratively. Thinking of where they are coming from and their vision of the US, I am confident that they are still going to try coming here regardless of increased disincentives. Given the extent to which they risk their lives and the barriers they have to cross just to reach the border, the risk of being shot or the need to circumvent some giant wall are going to seem like no big deal. A Great Wall of America is just going to create a new business (tunneling and wall circumvention) for immigrant smugglers.

How many come here as refugees from war-torn lands? To them, the choice is "stay home and die" or "try for the US and possibly die trying." Plenty of courageous and/or desperate people will set out...especially since they hear about the prosperity of those who have made it (and who often send plenty of money back to their family members in their home country). The Washington Post had a great article some months ago (maybe in 2005) about how certain Central American towns have become split between "haves" and "have nots" - between people who have relatives in the US and those who don't. Kids are raised by grandparents while the parents spend years in the US - the parents send money home but never get to visit, never get to see their kids grow up. If you think these people will be deterred by possibly getting shot, you don't realize how (socioeconomically) poor they really are and the opportunity that the US represents to them.

This is why, when I think of what we should "actually" do to stem illegal immigration, I think the most important thing is to reduce their incentive to come here (rather than trying to increase the already severe disincentives for them to come). I think they'll be less likely to stay (or to set out in the first place) if they come here and find that there is nothing here for them. Rather than going after the easy targets (the illegal immigrants), I think we should go after the targets that facilitate their stay - e.g., the employers who pay them or the law that says their kids born here are US citizens even if the parents are here illegally. If 60-70% of farm workers in CA are illegals, you're telling me the govt can't find some way to go after the big CA farmers? Employers are under zero pressure or obligation to verify the authenticity of work documents - isn't that just an invitation to the employers to look the other way, especially when hiring employees who will work for less money and who have no recourse if mistreated? But of course, what politician wants to go after wealthy agricultural interests that support his campaigns, especially considering the increased cost of food (and the resulting voter backlash) once the farmers have to pay a real wage to Americans rather than a cheap wage to illegal immigrants?

The kind of moves I prefer (such as the examples above) are more difficult than "just shoot them at the border," but in my mind they will be more effective. I did not get into this earlier because I thought this thread was about the "Minutemen," not about immigration reform. I am only mentioning alternative reforms now in response to the absurd and inaccurate "Unfortunately you don't seem interested in actually doing anything to stop it" comment. In fact, I am very interested in doing something to stop it. I am interested in doing something that will work, not doing something that spends a lot of time and money going after the easy targets but does nothing to address the real problems.

Our "war on drugs" has been going on for a few decades, at a cost of millions of dollars, but the problem persists because Americans keep using drugs. A "war on illegal immigrants" could go on for decades, but the problem will persist if the US remains a land of opportunity for illegal immigrants. In each case, going after the easy target does not address the problem.

As for the National Parks... so long as you're on the proper side of the wall, there wouldn't be a problem.

Wouldn't be a problem, eh? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we arm a group of people that can't seem to balance their own collective checkbook, give them orders to shoot to kill, and everything will work out for the best. I think these people would end up shooting as many Americans and other "Minutemen" as they would illegal immigrants, not to mention getting gunned down by immigrant smugglers. Border Patrol agents do risk their lives in protecting our border, which we should not forget in our haste to condemn them for the tide of illegal immigration.

Would it be long, expensive and costly to man?... Definitely. However we pay for it with the monies we've been giving to these aliens and other worthless sacks of flesh in terms of foreign aid, welfare, medicare, etc...

Thank you for the "worthless sacks of flesh" commentary - I wasn't really sure what you thought of illegal immigrants. Since you're such an expert on the relative value of people, can you give me some idea of how valuable you are relative to an illegal immigrant, in terms of being a "sack of flesh?" Ranking "sacks of flesh" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being worthless and 10 being pricelessly valuable, where do illegal immigrants rank and where do you rank? I'd just like to have a more clear idea of how much better than them you think you are.

Also, since you are so concerned about the money we are wasting on illegal immigrants through welfare and Medicare, can you supply any information on what portion of welfare and Medicare spending goes to illegal immigrants? What is it - 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? How much money does it come to, and what portion of the Great Wall of America could it pay for?

[swaroopm]

Sorry, one more thing...

Oh, one more question about the "shoot to kill" approach - does this also apply to children?

Yes it does. Men. Women. Children. Any illegal attempting to enter the country.

Additionally we rotate Marines and Army personnel through duty there to ensure that they can pull the trigger on another human being before sending them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. How does that sound to you?

Um, it sounds to me like you want our military to train by shooting women and children. As if we didn't have enough trouble with allegations of torture and atrocities by our military... :doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I agree that the US government has not taken appropriate measures to stem illegal immigration. I think our govt would rather kowtow to the corporate (e.g. agribusiness) interests that benefit from illegal immigration than take steps necessary to secure the border.

You're probably right. That's a slightly different discussion centering on the professionalization of the American political system, though. It's related to the topic at hand but has a totally separate way of being fixed.

It is absurd to suggest that I "don't seem interested in actually doing anything to stop it." Just because I do not agree with your proposals does not mean I don't want to do anything. Similarly, as I said in a previous post, just because I do not agree with your proposals does not mean I have "any difficulty making a distinction between right and wrong or acting on those decisions." Your assumptions are incorrect and your presumption is unappreciated.

We'll just have to accept that we're not going to agree on any of those things and move on in life. I'm glad to see my presumptions are unappreciated though. It's when people start agreeing with me that I have found I'm generally wrong.

Because I am opposed to illegal immigration, unlike our government, I am interested in "actually doing" something about it. I would prefer measures that I think would be more effective (and more cost-effective) than the "Minutemen," the "shoot to kill" policy, and the Great Wall of America. All these measures target the immigrants themselves, poor people who (since they often don't speak English and they often have dark skin) make easy targets, literally and figuratively. Thinking of where they are coming from and their vision of the US, I am confident that they are still going to try coming here regardless of increased disincentives. Given the extent to which they risk their lives and the barriers they have to cross just to reach the border, the risk of being shot or the need to circumvent some giant wall are going to seem like no big deal. A Great Wall of America is just going to create a new business (tunneling and wall circumvention) for immigrant smugglers.

The "shoot to kill" policy and the Great Walls are just the beginning so far as I'm concerned. My beliefs also include the revocation of all business licenses issued to any individual or company found to be employing even a single illegal aliern (knowingly or not). They include severe criminal penalties for anyone caught aiding an illegal alien(knowingly or not), or not reporting a known illegal. Will some people on both ends of the equation still try it.... definitely. That's their choice to risk the penalties if they get caught. Do you think Walmart will begin doing some extensive checking on potential employees if being caught with a single illegal means every Walmart store in the country got closed? I think so.

Our "war on drugs" has been going on for a few decades, at a cost of millions of dollars, but the problem persists because Americans keep using drugs. A "war on illegal immigrants" could go on for decades, but the problem will persist if the US remains a land of opportunity for illegal immigrants. In each case, going after the easy target does not address the problem.

Actually that's a pretty good analogy. In both cases we don't actually PUNISH those people who are involved in the abhorant behavior. We slap druggies, dealers, suppliers, etc... on the wrist. We do the same with illegal aliens and the people who smuggle them into the US, employ them, and assist them while they're here. We need to implement a system where these people are severely and harshly punished for their behavior.

Wouldn't be a problem, eh? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we arm a group of people that can't seem to balance their own collective checkbook, give them orders to shoot to kill, and everything will work out for the best. I think these people would end up shooting as many Americans and other "Minutemen" as they would illegal immigrants, not to mention getting gunned down by immigrant smugglers. Border Patrol agents do risk their lives in protecting our border, which we should not forget in our haste to condemn them for the tide of illegal immigration.

You are not quite understanding it correctly. The wall would be manned by members of the United States Armed Forces. In the interim, I was suggesting that groups of people willing to do what's necessary (pulling the trigger on these interlopers) be used to assist in securing the border by firepower. Would some Americans end up getting shot... probably. Would some of the Minutemen get shot... definitely. Maybe those incidents would actually get the worthless pussbags in Washington to understand that there's a problem on the border that needs to be dealt with RIGHT NOW.

The Border Patrol agents do what they're told to do. From what I've read, many of them are not happy with the current policies, but they have to carry them out. I'm not condeming them. I'm condeming the people above them who MAKE the policy and the policy itself.

Thank you for the "worthless sacks of flesh" commentary - I wasn't really sure what you thought of illegal immigrants. Since you're such an expert on the relative value of people, can you give me some idea of how valuable you are relative to an illegal immigrant, in terms of being a "sack of flesh?" Ranking "sacks of flesh" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being worthless and 10 being pricelessly valuable, where do illegal immigrants rank and where do you rank? I'd just like to have a more clear idea of how much better than them you think you are.

Whe "sacks of flesh" commentary wasn't limited to just illegal aliens. It encompases anyone who takes money from those unConstitutional social welfare programs.

illegal immigrants (and Non-Americans in general): 0

me: 5

Also, since you are so concerned about the money we are wasting on illegal immigrants through welfare and Medicare, can you supply any information on what portion of welfare and Medicare spending goes to illegal immigrants? What is it - 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? How much money does it come to, and what portion of the Great Wall of America could it pay for?

Actually, I'm concerned about the money we are wasting on EVERYONE through welfare, medicare, and a ton of other unConstitutional social programs. So far as I am concerned we should shut those programs down entirely and use that money to actually secure the borders, which the government is Constitutionally mandated to do.

Um, it sounds to me like you want our military to train by shooting women and children. As if we didn't have enough trouble with allegations of torture and atrocities by our military...

The job of the US Military is to kill people and break things for the betterment of this nation. If that means looking down the barrel of a weapon and pulling the trigger on women and children, so be it. I don't want us sending soldiers and Marines overseas who haven't proven they can actually do their job when it's necessary.

As for the "allegations of torture and attorcities" comment... why the **** do we care what any other country, government or foreign citizen thinks about our military. Our military is supposed to be there to support OUR country, not every other country on the world.

[BlueTalon]

Like the "Minutemen," I think that the govt needs to do more to reduce and discourage illegal immigration. At the same time, I agree with the critics of the "Minutemen" that these "Minutemen" are, well, not very bright. I mean, I don't think their ranks include many Rhodes Scholars. And, lo and behold, they manage to screw everything up (as evidenced in part by their apparent financial problems). Maybe they should rename their organization "Minutemen: The Beverly Hillbillies Meet Border Control." It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unconstructive.

Stereotyping doesn't seem like a very enlightened thing to do. Are you sure you're qualified/competent to make that judgment? On what precisely do you base you opinion of their education levels and intellect? Possible financial mismanagement by one or two people in leadership positions? And how do you define everything, as in "screw up everything", apart from the financial question?

[The 12th Commandment]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0404/p01s03-usgn.html

"The US Border Patrol has also stated loudly that the minutemen will not help agents do their jobs. They worry about the civilian volunteers setting off ground sensors, complicating video surveillance, and creating security problems. "Having a large number of people walking purposefully around the areas of migrant trails is not beneficial to us," says Rob Griffin of the US Border Patrol's Tucson sector."

As I posted earlier, the media attention and distraction they create impacts the mission of the BP, according to the local agents here.

The polocies that will abate the illigal immigration issue will address increasing quotas, decreasing wait time and getting tough with employers. In combination with increased border monitoring which is the only part of the issue that's politically attractive and hence is fully under way. There are almost daily reports of illegals dying in the most remote parts of the desert. This, sadly, is an indicator that the increased border monitoring is having the desired effect.

[BlueTalon]

It seems that on the one hand you are saying the Minutemen's presence is counterproductive, but on the other hand it is "having the desired effect." The are obviously having some kind of impact.

I find it interesting that you post the paragraph giving the Border Patrol quote. The article didn't say whether Griffin is a spokesman giving the official position of the Border Patrol, or an agent actually patrolling the border. What I've heard is that the administration is opposed to the Minutemen, but the agents patrolling the border appreciate their being there.

There were other paragraphs in that article. Perhaps you didn't read far enough to get to this:

Volunteers say the impact shows up not only on government balance sheets, but in backyards. Kerry Morales, who came from Laredo, Texas, says she gets 200 illegals a day across her 80-acre ranch. Bands of illegals have broken into her house, attacked her numerous times, and damaged her property by leaving gates open, letting horses escape. Two dozen child abductions have been reported in Laredo in recent years, she says, with cross-border Mexicans demanding ransoms of $10,000 to $20,000.

"I want to bring attention that for people like me, there is physical danger," says Ms. Morales, who is married to a Hispanic. "The fact that our opponents are calling us racist and extremist is completely untrue."

These are exactly the kind of people MSF had in mind when he advocated shooting the invaders. While I don't share that advocacy, I do agree with him that the best solution is a modern version of the Great Wall of China along the entire length of our southern border, with the only breaks being for authorized points of entry. (We need one along our northern border, too, but first things first.)

[The 12th Commandment]

It seems that on the one hand you are saying the Minutemen's presence is counterproductive, but on the other hand it is "having the desired effect." The are obviously having some kind of impact.

I don't know were I said the minutemen were having the desired effect, but the border patrol/national guards increased patrolling are. Making the argument that the feds aren't doing it so we must, mute.

I find it interesting that you post the paragraph giving the Border Patrol quote. The article didn't say whether Griffin is a spokesman giving the official position of the Border Patrol, or an agent actually patrolling the border. What I've heard is that the administration is opposed to the Minutemen, but the agents patrolling the border appreciate their being there.

I deal with BP field agents as part of my job on a fairly regular basis sharing data on border land ownership and terrain models. As I posted earlier their take on it is that due to the increased media attention given the minutemen, they are forced to respond to minutemen reports while leaving the remote areas where the illegals are now crossing. Illegals are dying in greater numbers due to this.

There were other paragraphs in that article. Perhaps you didn't read far enough to get to this:

I read it, but my goal isn't to quote single minded editorials that back up my position, I think that would be weak. There are those who think they are doing a good service, I can't ignore that. But I would place more weight on the opinion of professionals whose job it is to patrol the border, than anecdotal evidence from one individual who obviously had some rare, but traumatic experiences. Anyone who commits crimes like those mentioned deserves the MSF punishment IMO.

Volunteers say the impact shows up not only on government balance sheets, but in backyards. Kerry Morales, who came from Laredo, Texas, says she gets 200 illegals a day across her 80-acre ranch. Bands of illegals have broken into her house, attacked her numerous times, and damaged her property by leaving gates open, letting horses escape. Two dozen child abductions have been reported in Laredo in recent years, she says, with cross-border Mexicans demanding ransoms of $10,000 to $20,000.

"I want to bring attention that for people like me, there is physical danger," says Ms. Morales, who is married to a Hispanic. "The fact that our opponents are calling us racist and extremist is completely untrue."

These are exactly the kind of people MSF had in mind when he advocated shooting the invaders. While I don't share that advocacy, I do agree with him that the best solution is a modern version of the Great Wall of China along the entire length of our southern border, with the only breaks being for authorized points of entry. (We need one along our northern border, too, but first things first.)

Not practical for a variety of reasons namely money, and not necessary if we address the bad guys amongst ourselves who are every bit (I believe more) as responsible for the problems. Lawmakers, business men and do gooders too. Ehhh, it's easier to blame poor, hungry people who speak a different language though - isn't it?

[BlueTalon]

It's easier to defend poor hungry people who speak a different language when you ignore the kidnappings, assaults, property damage (plus subsequent murders, rapes, drug crimes, etc. once they're inside the country) they're responsible for, isn't it?

Don't even try to tag me with the racist innuendo, that's just a sign that you're losing the argument.

Why are you so opposed to a wall, when it would so obviously work? (I'm all for addressing the "bad guys amongst ourselves", but we've seen how that works in drug enforcement -- it's a never-ending game, and it always will be unless we can stem the inward flow of illegals.) While it would certainly be tremendously expensive, the costs are all up front -- unlike the ongoing costs of hospitalization, education, incarceration, etc., not to mention the personal costs to the victims of crimes perpetrated by the illegals.

[The 12th Commandment]

It's easier to defend poor hungry people who speak a different language when you ignore the kidnappings, assaults, property damage (plus subsequent murders, rapes, drug crimes, etc. once they're inside the country) they're responsible for, isn't it?

Don't even try to tag me with the racist innuendo, that's just a sign that you're losing the argument.

That came off as refering to you personally, that's not what I meant though. I wouldn't attack someone who is engaging in a civilized discussion anymore than I think you would. It was more a glib comment on where most of the blame seems to be focused. My bad. Although in my defense it was a pretty insignificant part of my argument and I think there is a pervassive racial undertone to this issue. There has been for every wave of immigrants, why should this one be any different?

Why are you so opposed to a wall, when it would so obviously work? (I'm all for addressing the "bad guys amongst ourselves", but we've seen how that works in drug enforcement -- it's a never-ending game, and it always will be unless we can stem the inward flow of illegals.) While it would certainly be tremendously expensive, the costs are all up front -- unlike the ongoing costs of hospitalization, education, incarceration, etc., not to mention the personal costs to the victims of crimes perpetrated by the illegals.

I really think it would be a waste of money. If I didn't believe that I would consider it despite the unpleasant symbolizm it is sure to engender.

Here we just flat out disagree - I take the demand side argument. When there is no excess of work for them, and they have the ability to cross legally in a reasonable fashion, only hard cores will attempt the unpleasant (understatement) trek across the desert and the huge fees that the coyotes charge. They will be much easier to catch with walls in the urban and identified high traffic areas and increased monitoring with tech and agents for the more remote area.

You seem to think that if the supply goes away so will the demand. I don't think the demand will go away, and where's there is a demand the supply will find. Regardless of the difficulty. Cracking down on employeers and changing policy is a whole lot more effecient use of our money IMO. I think you drug analogy makes my point, we don't deal with demand and despite a tremendous effort to stem supply, there is no noticable decrease.

So what I am saying is that I don't believe, after living most of my life within 50 miles of the border, that a wall would work. I know that country and it would take a mammoth effort to build and maintain.

[BlueTalon]

So what if it takes a mammoth effort? I fully expect that building a wall would take mammoth effort. But why does that have anything to do with it working or not working? You haven't given a cogent argument as to why a wall wouldn't work. Of course it would work. And a wall wouldn't eliminate the supply of workers, either -- it would merely channel them through the legal points of entry.

My drug analogy does not make your point. You want to address the illegal immigrant issue on the demand side, and my point is that primarily focusing on that will be every bit as unsuccessful as it has been with the drug war. So far so good, but you miss the part about the wall. Your mistake is in assuming that the "tremendous effort to stem supply" of drugs is anywhere near as successful as a great wall would be at stopping people (which, incidentally, would stop not only people but some of the drugs as well). A wall would drop the tide to a trickle, and make it then more productive to address the demand side.