Home Invasion at the National Level

[Andrew Green]

I agree with John, as long as there are jobs, people will show up to fill them.

And consumers are the ones supporting those jobs because companies need to use low wage workers to keep there prices at what consumers are willing to pay.

Everyone wants it both ways, higher wages for workers, keep them legal, and lower prices. Those two things oppose each other, and most people seem to prefer paying less out of there pocket then putting more in someone elses...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Even in the context you provided, there is no valid support for the conclusion that your wife will be raped by migrant workers if the status quo remains unchanged. It's cheap rhetoric that blunts the point, or worse, co-opts it so that the point really becomes "Be afraid!". It'd be interesting to see someone present this point of view rationally for a change instead of retreating to fearmongering scare tactics from the title onwards. Reality isn't just hysterical shrieking.

You still don't get it. Reread the entire paragraph. There's a very real connection between increased crime rates and toleration of illegal immigration. I argue that we should be willing to tolerate higher prices in exchange for lower rates of crime.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Phil, you are presenting your opinions as fact, and brush off other's opinions as unworthy nonsense. Many here feel your opinions are nonsense. OK, once again, these are all opinions, everyone is going to have one. looks to me like this is going to be a disagreement no matter what, plain and simple.

The validity of my beliefs is not contingent on majority approval of them. Armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens; this is a simple fact. Someone telling me that he has never felt the "need" to be prepared (and thus no one should prepare) is substituting wishful thinking for recognition of reality.

Stepping back from this for a moment, if I say something, it is by definition my opinion. Rather than getting upset about the conviction with which I offer my opinions, you might simply rebut them -- or ignore them. This is a discussion forum, after all. Why do you think I post this material? I enjoy generating talk.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Nothng is static...the future becomes the now becoms history and any given moment in time is jut a brief snaphot of that consantly racing timeline

Yesterday's immigrant is todays taxpayer is tomorrow's settled family.

Today's illegal immigrant is tomorrow's old man sitting in the living room talking about 'the old country'

 

[Phil Elmore]

It would be nice if that was the case, but to dismiss the whole issue with homespun witticisms is to ignore the real social, financial, and legal problems created by failure to enforce our borders and citizenship laws. I'm all for immigration -- provided it is LEGAL.

 

[Marginal]

You still don't get it. Reread the entire paragraph. There's a very real connection between increased crime rates and toleration of illegal immigration. I argue that we should be willing to tolerate higher prices in exchange for lower rates of crime.

Nope. That's not what was said. It may have been what was intended, but that paragraph does nothing to establish that point.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Nope. That is indeed what was said. I think you're deliberately ignoring the point to substitute what you wish to see.

 

[Marginal]

Nope. That is indeed what was said. I think you're deliberately ignoring the point to substitute what you wish to see.

You get more out of meaningless schlock than I do in that case. Even the stats are useless in the article's context. Really amazing.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Proclaiming them useless does not invalidate them. In my opinion, you are simply ignoring facts you find distasteful.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Gents, maybe if you could all spend some time on the facts of the debate, rather than all the time you seem to be spending insulting each other, this would actually be a useful topic to read. As it is, it seems to be less about the issue of illegal access to the US and the economic and public safety issues that surround it, and more over who thinks who is a bigger nitwit.

If you wish to continue to piss on each other, don't be too surprised when the folks with the badges pop in and hand out some vacation time. I will shut up now, so that everyone can go back to calling each other names and such.

 

[Kacey]

The validity of my beliefs is not contingent on majority approval of them.

I read your article and found it heavy on opinion and light on verifiable fact; I find fact more convincing. Nor have I seen you respond to the questions about supply and demand, which is a key factor in this issue.

Armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens; this is a simple fact.

I would like to see the statistics on which you base this statement. For myself, I have never owned a gun, never used a gun, and the closest I have ever gotten to holding a gun was when I helped a friend move, and he handed me an anonymous case which, it turned out, held his wife's hunting rifle. I know quite a few people who have even less experience with, and knowledge of, guns than myself. For us to have guns would be more likely to place ourselves and our families at risk than to not have them. Nor am I interested in owning a gun. Guns are an all or nothing proposition; 'shoot to wound' is a fallacious statement, and meaningless in the heat of the moment - you should never point a gun at anything (except a target) unless you mean to kill whatever you point at.

Someone telling me that he has never felt the "need" to be prepared (and thus no one should prepare) is substituting wishful thinking for recognition of reality.

As I said, I see a no need to own a gun, nor do I find myself to be at greater risk from immigrant workers than non-immigrant workers, who want safety - which would rather imply not coming to the attention of the police by committing crimes; personally, I am much more concerned with drug addicts, theives, and the psychologically deranged, as they are more likely to attack, and less likely to be predictable.

Stepping back from this for a moment, if I say something, it is by definition my opinion.

An interesting viewpoint. Not everything I post is opinion; some of it is recounting of events, some is fact, and some is, indeed opinion - and I tend to label my opinion as such when I post it.

Rather than getting upset about the conviction with which I offer my opinions, you might simply rebut them -- or ignore them. This is a discussion forum, after all. Why do you think I post this material? I enjoy generating talk.

Indeed - this is a discussion board - not your personal editoral column. Certainly, your posts generate discussion - much of it in disagreement with your initial posts. This part I do not object to; however, I do object when, based on your responses, you seem to find it improbable, if not impossible, for others to *gasp* disagree with you - and further, I notice that you tend to only respond to those posters who respond with opinions of their own, while ignoring posts containing facts you cannot (or perhaps will not) refute - and your response is generally to claim that unsupported opinion (such as the ones you yourself post) is meaningless, while still not responding to requests for the facts on which you base your opinion. As things stand, I may or may not read your further posts (and frankly, the length tends toward diatribe rather than discussion; I glanced at another, decided it was too long, and didn't read it), but no matter what opinion you state, I will take it with a very large grain of salt unless and until you provide facts that back up your opinion.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

The facts are in my mind, simple.

Individuals are entering the US illegally through it's shared border with Mexico.
The Mexican police and military are corrupt, often condoning drug smuggling, murder and torture.
In order for the US to prevent individuals with hostile intent from entering it, they must fortify their borders in order to make certain that entry is made as difficult as possible for those attempting unlawful entry.
Lawful entry must be made more efficient.

The fact that there are now dual-citizenship children living here does not somehow automatically excuse the fact that the mother/fathers are here illegally. Other immigrants managed to enter the country legally, and have for over 200 years. An exception should not be made here. The families should be deported.

I find the fact of an illegal, posessing a fake ID and fake drivers licence, driving a better car than I, who is now being offered retirement, social security and health benefits, that are not available to me, to be somehow offensive. But, if others wish to support a Welfare Nation, open to anyone regardless of intent, so be it. We should probably also stop what few safety inspections are done at the border as well, since it is unfair to hold US highway safety standards against them. I look forward to the increase in accidents that will happen due to faulty brakes, tires, and restraints. After all, a steel coil let loose on a US highway has never caused a problem before, right?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Edmund, that's twice now that I've found myself agreeing with you. Surely this is a sign of the apocalypse.

 

[Marginal]

Proclaiming them useless does not invalidate them.

All the statistics establish is that some illegal immigrants commit crimes. (Given that there are bad elements in every group, this is not especially surprising.) They may indeed be valid stats, but as they are presented, they do not prove or reinforce the author's position (unless you happen to agree with that position already, and have no reason to examine the stats). It is just a shallow attempt to lend the screed credibility.

 

[Andrew Green]

All the statistics establish is that some illegal immigrants commit crimes.

I'd imagine that goes both ways. How many American criminals have fled to Mexico illegally I wonder?

 

[Don Roley]

Build a wall, not a fence.
Man it 24/7/365 like Hadrians Wall.
Allow for roaming patrols of well armed and trained troops.
Use scanning devices to look for tunnels under the wall, and other boarder areas.

Use the National Guard as well as Regular Military as the manpower.

Yes, it will cost some money, but if we are serious about our border security, a serious lockdown must be done, as if a lettuce picker and sweatshop worker can sneak across, so can a shoe bomber, or jihadic kamikaze.

At the border crossings, use all technology possible to scan and search each and every vehicle for smuggling, as well as safety issues, and turn back all that fail to meet regulations. Staff and equip those crossings properly.

Build 1 less bomber a year. The money to fund this will be there then.

How about land mines to kill people trying to cross the border?

I am not being silly or sarcastic. I am merely placing things in the proper context.

When you involve the military, you are upping the ante to a level where we start talking about 'collateral damage.' We need to determine if that level is warrented and be clear on the matter before we take action like this.

I was in the infantry. There are at least four other members of martialtalk that were as well. I think they will all agree with me when I say that I am proud to serve and really proud to be one of the ones that are the first into battle....but there is a certain amount of truth to the saying that if you have half a mind to join the infantry- that's enough.:lol2:

The military has the job of killing people and breaking their stuff. They do that job very, very well. They do not have to pass the same tests as police officers do or can expect to be doing the same job for decades on end. We will be putting people on the border who know the job of killing very well and the specifics of law enforcement almost not at all.

Do we think the threat is large enough to warrent this? If so, let us debate it, agree on it and let it stand. What I do not want to see is some kid killed in a crossfire between coyotes and the military followed by a whole lot of liberals on television saying, "we never thought that the military would actually kill someone when they defended the borders." :whip:

Maybe this story will kind of shed a new light on the situation. A few years ago there was a case of some people racing up the 405 through San Onofre in California chased by the CHP. Note, it was not the border patrol, but the California police. There was a huge scandal over the fact that the rough treatment of the illeagals after they stopped was caught by a news helicopter.

I was on a mailing list with a guy who used to be on the border patrol and is now working for another part of the goverment. He pointed to the footage of the chase itself where the illeagles were doing their best to cause a dangerous situation on the freeways. They were taking heavy parts of the campershell that had been concealed under and throwing it into traffic to try to cause accidents. The ex border patrol guy said that there had been some controversy over the chances of people getting killed in chases and so the orders had come down that when things got dangerous for them to back off and let the coyotes get away. The coyotes learned of this and started upping the ante and arranging for danger to happen like this just as soon as a chase occured.

But in this case, the chasing officers were not border patrol that had been told to back off, they were CHP. And after seeing people do things that could easily have killed several motorists, they treated the suspects at the end as if they were a danger until proven otherwise. Hence the trouble, the lawsuits, etc.

Now, these guys were not border patrol, but they were police officers that were selected at a higher standard than the typical infantryman and expected to be in law enforcement for a few decades. So if they could do things that ended up in court, how do you expect the 18 year old high school dropout trained to kill people first and ask questions later to keep within the bounds of domestic laws?

My old regiment used to guard the border back when the idea was that if you tried to enter the country illeagally you died. If we let loose the military on the borders we need to acknowledge that the military is trained to kill and not scream when they do their job. Hence the idea of land mines. They can kill, are made to kill, and the same can be said about the 18 year old with a rifle in his hands.

Here is an idea to cause some screaming......

The problem with immigration is that Americans will not do the job that hard working Mexicans will, right? People like Phil have no problem with legal immigrants, right? The people that do these jobs do so because you can't legally hire people at the wages that the illeagles will work for, right?

Well, how about we have a guest worker program where people can come to America and work legally without things like minimum wage laws being applied to them?

Scream!!!!!!!!!

It should be fun to see those that say that every American should be paid a decent wage and yet defend illeagles for doing jobs that Americans won't do for their wages try to defend that. Some say that everyone in the states should be subject to labor laws and oppose illeagle immigration. They would not have trouble staying constant. There are others that want to open up the borders and get rid of things like the minimum wage laws. They too should not have a trouble staying constant. But those that want to make sure that every American is covered by labor laws and yet say we should forgive illeagle immigration should have quite a time trying to explain how they can hold both beliefs.

Let the screaming begin!!!!!!!:asian:

 

[Don Roley]

I'd imagine that goes both ways. How many American criminals have fled to Mexico illegally I wonder?

Actually, if you kill someone in the states and flee to Mexico they will not deport you back. It is fairly common in border states for people, even those holding American citizenship, to flee to Mexico in anything that could end in a death sentence. Mexico does not have the death penalty and will not return people to countries where they may face it.

There are people who have killed Americans living in open freedom in Mexico. I saw a program once about someone who raped and killed some kids who were walking around in Mexico without fear. Wasn't there some case where one of these scum buckets was grabbed by a bounty hunter and pulled back across the border to face justice, causing a huge diplomatic incident?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the US signed some agreement outlawing it's use of landmines, but, doubt that it would stand in the way if the government wanted it.

Don makes a good point. These illegals come here in most cases for work. They take jobs that often are paid in cash, off the books, for less than minimum wage. Sealing the border will cause hostilities, and deaths.

 

[Andrew Green]

I don't think the US did, although a lot of other countries have.

 

[Don Roley]

I don't think the US did, although a lot of other countries have.

The Clinton administration rightly rejected it. They tried a compromise that would allow them to have a minefield in places like the North- South Korean border while still avoiding the problems of mines left as boobytraps by means of mines that destroyed themselves after a short while, but no one would meet them half way.

Of course, if we did put them on the border with Mexico, maybe Canada in areas well marked as such, it would up the ante and make it very clear just how seriously the matter was. If you walk into a clearly marked minefield, don't complain when you get your leg blown off. And if you take your kid into that area, you do not deserve to leave the area alive. If you are caught with your kid before you set off a mine, your kid should be taken from you on the spot and your corpse mounted on the fence around the minefield as a warning of the danger.

No, I am not a very civilized person when it comes to putting your kids in danger.