Well will you look at that, Republicans just might be compromising.

[chucky2]

If they're crossing an established DMZ with warning signs posted, and they're stopped with force, how is that murder?

 

[fskimospy]

I had no idea N. Korea or East Germany had an illegal invasion problem they needed to be keeping out. If they did that is total news to me, and if they didn't that is a massive false equivalency by you. Hmmm...which one is it?

Can you give us a general idea of how many illegal immigrants must cross a border in a year so that murdering them indiscriminately becomes an acceptable solution?

You don't have to be super-specific, just a broad number.

 

[fskimospy]

If they're crossing an established DMZ with warning signs posted, and they're stopped with force, how is that murder?

I don't think you know what a DMZ is.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't think you know what a DMZ is.

Well I don't think you understand what murder is.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think you know what a DMZ is.

Demilitarized Zone, correct? Is that not a zone where there are supposed to be no combatants? I'd characterize an illegal invader as a combatant in this context, but, perhaps I mispoke on terms? What would be the proper term for a zone along the border, properly marked to people entering and exiting, that entry into this zone not authorized by U.S. State or Federal authorities will be met with deadly force? Dead zone?

 

[ivwshane]

No 'the right' wants to scale back social programs to reasonable levels and get people taking responsibility for themselves or suffering the consequences they themselves set themselves up to suffer. It's their choice, but ridiculous rewards for failure it really counterproductive.



What F'ing imbecile would be stupid enough to want people here illegally to use programs we have to pay for? Is there even anyone that stupid here that would admit that?



Beats me. Does 'the right' want to get rid of the minimum wage? Are there bills being passed or with large Right support on that topic? I'd be interested to see them if you could link them up.



Again, what idiot would be dumb enough to want illegals to use our HC system we're paying for? I can understand they're here illegally and have an unforeseen emergency. Yes, we should treat that. Then put them on the next plane to Mexico once stable for travel for them to deal with.



No, I doubt they are. I am though, if only because the free market has decided to be so greedy for such a critical service. Had the free market self-regulated to reasonable levels, I'd much rather have that system then Gov getting into the mix. You will notice what a gem ACA is turning out to be so far.



I'm not seeing that that in and of itself is such a large problem. We all live here, each of us that earn wages that is over 18 IMO should have some skin in the game. If that means 'the rich' pay less, then, so be it. When 547% don't pay anything to the Fed, that to me is far less of a 'the rich' problem than far more of a 47% problem. Prior to becoming a Spender, I'd say it still isn't a problem, the Gov should just either increase taxes across the board to cover what needs to be spent, or, preferably whenever possible (not Politician possible, Reality possible), reduce its spending to be inline with tax receipts. Oh the horror!



This will be the last time I do so. I can't dedicate time to correcting every one of your posts, I'd be here all day.

Chuck

Lol, so then nothing in my post was wrong. Thanks!

 

[fskimospy]

Demilitarized Zone, correct? Is that not a zone where there are supposed to be no combatants? I'd characterize an illegal invader as a combatant in this context, but, perhaps I mispoke on terms? What would be the proper term for a zone along the border, properly marked to people entering and exiting, that entry into this zone not authorized by U.S. State or Federal may be met with deadly force? Dead zone?

Current US regulations identify 'combatants' as follows:

“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

“Unlawful Enemy Combatant” means:
(A) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(B) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(C) “Co-belligerent” means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

People illegally immigrating to the US do not fit any of those definitions, or come even remotely close to it. Also, the US/Mexican border is not a demilitarized zone. If you wish to make violating the US border a capital crime, we probably have a lot of international agreements that need to be renegotiated as well as a bunch of laws that need to be changed.

 

[nehalem256]

Current US regulations identify 'combatants' as follows:

“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

“Unlawful Enemy Combatant” means:
(A) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(B) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(C) “Co-belligerent” means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

People illegally immigrating to the US do not fit any of those definitions, or come even remotely close to it. Also, the US/Mexican border is not a demilitarized zone. If you wish to make violating the US border a capital crime, we probably have a lot of international agreements that need to be renegotiated as well as a bunch of laws that need to be changed.

Invading the US would seem to constitute hostilities.

 

[fskimospy]

Invading the US would seem to constitute hostilities.

Well we will just chalk this up to another thing you're ignorant of then, huh.

Illegally immigrating to another country does not equal engaging in hostilities against it. If you believe otherwise, please cite the exact US statute or court decision that you believe supports your case.

 

[chucky2]

Lol, so then nothing in my post was wrong. Thanks!

Errr....

 

[chucky2]

Well we will just chalk this up to another thing you're ignorant of then, huh.

Illegally immigrating to another country does not equal engaging in hostilities against it. If you believe otherwise, please cite the exact US statute or court decision that you believe supports your case.

When it's by the tens of Millions, does not the sum equal engaging in hostilities to it? I'm of the opinion in the case of our illegal invasion problem it does, sort of along the lines If you owe the bank $10,000 it's your problem, if you owe the bank $10M it's their problem. If our illegal immigration problem was merely 5k a year or something, there would be little need to tackle it, we could handle that bleed indefinitely. When it's of the magnitude it's been at previously, and is at now (and, that's the minimum it's at, not what in Reality it really is, which will be much more), we're the bank, and it's our problem.

I'd say given the direct impact, we can call this an illegal invasion and simply consider them hostiles. It works for me (and pretty much every other non-Bleeding Heart/White Guilter/etc I know).

 

[chucky2]

Current US regulations identify 'combatants' as follows:

“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

“Unlawful Enemy Combatant” means:
(A) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(B) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
(C) “Co-belligerent” means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

People illegally immigrating to the US do not fit any of those definitions, or come even remotely close to it. Also, the US/Mexican border is not a demilitarized zone. If you wish to make violating the US border a capital crime, we probably have a lot of international agreements that need to be renegotiated as well as a bunch of laws that need to be changed.

Invading the US would seem to constitute hostilities.

I think the US is simply large enough and powerful enough that we can declare whatever we want in context of our invaded Southern border. If we need to make a declaration, so be it. Who is going to make us stop the, when needed, lethal enforcement of our border integrity? That's right: No one.

 

[fskimospy]

When it's by the tens of Millions, does not the sum equal engaging in hostilities to it? I'm of the opinion in the case of our illegal invasion problem it does, sort of along the lines If you owe the bank $10,000 it's your problem, if you owe the bank $10M it's their problem. If our illegal immigration problem was merely 5k a year or something, there would be little need to tackle it, we could handle that bleed indefinitely. When it's of the magnitude it's been at previously, and is at now (and, that's the minimum it's at, not what in Reality it really is, which will be much more), we're the bank, and it's our problem.

I'd say given the direct impact, we can call this an illegal invasion and simply consider them hostiles. It works for me (and pretty much every other non-Bleeding Heart/White Guilter/etc I know).

If you believe this is the case, please cite the relevant US statute or court decision that you believe makes this an illegal invasion.

If you wish the US to make some sort of declaration, can you give me the broad details of it?

How do we determine what migrants are to be executed?

Are we executing all individuals, US citizens included that located within a certain area?

If so, how do we deal with the fact that some heavy border crossing areas are in fact frequented by US citizens?

If you believe this works for such a wide swath of the American public, can you provide any polling that supports this assertion?

 

[nehalem256]

Well we will just chalk this up to another thing you're ignorant of then, huh.

Illegally immigrating to another country does not equal engaging in hostilities against it. If you believe otherwise, please cite the exact US statute or court decision that you believe supports your case.

If a country has millions of its citizens illegally cross an international border into another its an invasion.

 

[fskimospy]

If a country has millions of its citizens illegally cross an international border into another its an invasion.

This post does not contain a statute or court ruling. Try again.

 

[nehalem256]

If you believe this is the case, please cite the relevant US statute or court decision that you believe makes this an illegal invasion.

Why don't you name one French statue or court decision that would make the German "invasion" of France in WWII an illegal invasion?

Maybe Hitler was just illegally immigrating his Panzer divisions?

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't you name one French statue or court decision that would make the German "invasion" of France in WWII an illegal invasion?

Maybe Hitler was just illegally immigrating his Panzer divisions?

This post also contains no statutes or court rulings. Try again.

 

[chucky2]

Why don't you name one French statue or court decision that would make the German "invasion" of France in WWII an illegal invasion?

Maybe Hitler was just illegally immigrating his Panzer divisions?

Haha! Hey, they just overstayed their welcome! WTF dude, who are you people and why are you all in my house?!?! This is trespassing! 'Please cite the law and statue that says we are trespassing.'

You know this dude has a spreadsheet called LeftTalkingPoints.xlsx with tabs that say something like UndocumentedImmigrants, and then a bunch of supporting BS for his cause, and/or, he gets paid to dream this sh1t up.

 

[Ldir]

I had no idea N. Korea or East Germany had an illegal invasion problem they needed to be keeping out. If they did that is total news to me, and if they didn't that is a massive false equivalency by you. Hmmm...which one is it?

If you are so dumb you think those are the only choices the answer is total news to you. It is not a false equivalence since you want to kill anyone crossing the border. So do they.

 

[OGOC]

No point in doubling the number of border guards if the current ones already aren't allowed to do their jobs. It'll just be twice as many people getting paid to stand around.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha! Hey, they just overstayed their welcome! WTF dude, who are you people and why are you all in my house?!?! This is trespassing! 'Please cite the law and statue that says we are trespassing.'

You know this dude has a spreadsheet called LeftTalkingPoints.xlsx with tabs that say something like UndocumentedImmigrants, and then a bunch of supporting BS for his cause, and/or, he gets paid to dream this sh1t up.

You realize that trespassing is illegal and there is in fact a law against it, right?

Additionally, there are quite a lot of sources from which to draw a legal definition of 'hostilities', both in US case law and otherwise. If you believe that people illegally immigrating here meets that definition, please provide a source for it.

Don't get mad at me because you made a dumb argument. I'm just telling you reality.

 

[chucky2]

If you believe this is the case, please cite the relevant US statute or court decision that you believe makes this an illegal invasion.

Not a lawyer, don't know where I'd find that, don't care to go find that. Common sense, anyones common sense, calls this an illegal invasion. The only people that don't are the pro-illegal invasion folks...funny that. You are asking me to do the equivalent of citing law that says someone you don't know who has broken into your house is not a trespasser, until I can post the law for that. Do you realize how F'ing stupid your request is now? Try not to Nick Naylor out on us here...

If you wish the US to make some sort of declaration, can you give me the broad details of it?

Easy: Anyone crossing the Southern border in a direction that sees them cross from Mexico to the US, who cannot be turned be turned back by non-violent means or detained, will be met with deadly force as part of the effort to stop the illegal invasion of the US southern border. Sucks for Mexican and US citizens who are local and would just cross and come back for say entertainment or visitation reasons, but, these are the times we live in. Complain to the illegals they'll all know, by their numbers, they F'd it up for everyone else.

How do we determine what migrants are to be executed?

See above.

Are we executing all individuals, US citizens included that located within a certain area?

This would really be the hardest part to implement. Some areas would just unfortunately have to be No Go. Others if they were known they would be safe, or perhaps implement some kind of RFID or some sort of ID device. Hard to say, we'd have to take each area by each area and figure out what was needed. I think it's safe when we're IDing people on the bank of a border river on the Mexican side, and they're swimming across to the US side, they either are illegals trying to further invade us, or, are idiots with a death wish and decided to F up their own lives. Treat it no different than idiots trying to really push the boundaries of Area 51. You know what would happen, you chose to push, you ended up dead. Next time don't do that please.

If so, how do we deal with the fact that some heavy border crossing areas are in fact frequented by US citizens?

As I said above, that's the hardest part to deal with. Have to handle it on an area by area basis. What works good for one area might not work good for another.

If you believe this works for such a wide swath of the American public, can you provide any polling that supports this assertion?

Nope, have never gone looking for polling. I'm sure it exists, and I'm sure if properly presented in a non-rigged poll, Americans by far would like the Southern border locked down vs. the effective nothing being done and still paying for it. Which is precisely what has been done in the past, what is being done now, and what this bill will end up being in the future. That's the problem with polling, even if done honestly, it needs to setup the context correctly for those being polled so as to make the poll actually mean something. Take these examples:

Which do you prefer: A bill that will solve our illegal immigration problem in a safe and ethical manner or the militarization of our borders?

or

Would you prefer: A peaceful solution to our illegal immigration issues or harsh solutions?

Hey, who doesn't want to do things in a safe and ethical manner? Who really wants the border militarized? Who wants a harsh solution when there's an peaceful one available? The problem is, they never explain to the people being polled beforehand that we already have these failed safe and ethical solutions in place now, and they're failures. We already have peaceful solultions in place now, and they're failures.

Find me a poll where they list it like this: Would you rather pay for and continue the failure policies we have in place now, or, given it is the only realistic solution we have to actually solve the illegal invasion we've been under for the past 30 years, bring home our existing overseas military and militarize our southern border to stop the illegal invasion.

If you can find a poll where it is as blatant and contextually correct as that, and where they polled a high enough number of Americans, and the polling agency isn't LeftiesForOpenBorders.org, I'll take note. Until then, if it's non-contextualized poll questions where people I know who have no F'ing clue or critical thinking skills are polled, and thus, conned, your poll desires mean about jack sh1t.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

If you are so dumb you think those are the only choices the answer is total news to you. It is not a false equivalence since you want to kill anyone crossing the border. So do they.

The difference is though I'm not wanting to kill anyone crossing the border. We have authorized border crossing points. We don't let in 10 people a year on legal and valid visas, we let in <insert some extremely large number, with extremely large % from Mexico>. Those examples have nothing to do with the US other than we'd be locking down unauthorized entry through our borders (shocker, same as Mexico does). Unfortunately, given the size of our border, those illegally invading may have to be killed as we can't be expected to detain Everyone. Sucks for those not bothering to use one of the many authorized crossing areas properly. Next.

 

[fskimospy]

Not a lawyer, don't know where I'd find that, don't care to go find that. Common sense, anyones common sense, calls this an illegal invasion. The only people that don't are the pro-illegal invasion folks...funny that. You are asking me to do the equivalent of citing law that says someone you don't know who has broken into your house is not a trespasser, until I can post the law for that. Do you realize how F'ing stupid your request is now? Try not to Nick Naylor out on us here...

Do you realize how f'ing stupid this statement is? "I don't have any basis for my opinion, but I just assume everyone thinks that way". The fundamental stupidity of this is pretty obvious from the trespassing example. Trespassing is illegal precisely because you CAN go cite the statute that says it is. You have claimed that this constitutes 'hostilities' as defined by US law. If that's the case, it should be easy for you to provide some statutes or some analogous cases that would indicate that.

You know as well as I do why you can't, and it's because you're wrong.

I'm going to cut out your ideas on how to secure the border. Horrifying.

Nope, have never gone looking for polling. I'm sure it exists, and I'm sure if properly presented in a non-rigged poll, Americans by far would like the Southern border locked down vs. the effective nothing being done and still paying for it. Which is precisely what has been done in the past, what is being done now, and what this bill will end up being in the future. That's the problem with polling, even if done honestly, it needs to setup the context correctly for those being polled so as to make the poll actually mean something.

Oh, another one of those 'I don't have any evidence, but I'm sure that everyone agrees with me" things.

Find me a poll where they list it like this: Would you rather pay for and continue the failure policies we have in place now, or, given it is the only realistic solution we have to actually solve the illegal invasion we've been under for the past 30 years, bring home our existing overseas military and militarize our southern border to stop the illegal invasion.

If you can find a poll where it is as blatant and contextually correct as that, and where they polled a high enough number of Americans, and the polling agency isn't LeftiesForOpenBorders.org, I'll take note. Until then, if it's non-contextualized poll questions where people I know who have no F'ing clue or critical thinking skills are polled, and thus, conned, your poll desires mean about jack sh1t.

Chuck

It is frankly hilarious that you believe that phrasing is an example of a "non-rigged" poll. What world do you live in?

 

[chucky2]

You realize that trespassing is illegal and there is in fact a law against it, right?

What? No way man. Not if there's like 10 people in your house. That's not trespassing, that's them bettering their living conditions. You need to provide them the law in writing before even asking them to leave - which you better not do bigot, that's their house now.

Additionally, there are quite a lot of sources from which to draw a legal definition of 'hostilities', both in US case law and otherwise. If you believe that people illegally immigrating here meets that definition, please provide a source for it.

What is more hostile than taking ones job via exploitation? Commiting crimes against them? Driving up debt and tax burden via social services? Sounds really hostile to me. Provide a source for...what exactly? What source do I need for the US to tell Mexico, and those all illegals invading the US via Mexico, that if they can't be turned back or detained, they'll be killed on US soil? Please be specific on exactly who is going to stop the US from doing that.

Don't get mad at me because you made a dumb argument. I'm just telling you reality.

Ahhh, you're diminishment tactic. Failed in other threads, failed here. Quick, to the spreadsheet!