Pentagon eyes ways to use military

[Judge Hades]

I believe there is a quota on how many people from a country is allowed in each year. Once that quota is filled then no more immigration is allowed for that country. DOn't quote me on that for I don't know 100% but I think that is how it goes.

[alanschu]

I'm sure that that is the case.

 

 

In any case, if it's just about whether or not it's legal or not, why do you care?

[Judge Hades]

Because I am a rules lawyer.

[Moose]

You should just let them come in illegally. As soon as they realise how sh*t the u.s is they'll soon leave again.

[LoneWolf16]

You should just let them come in illegally. As soon as they realise how sh*t the u.s is they'll soon leave again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

**** as opposed to what?

[Moose]

As opposed to not ****

[Lucius]

I think you got it turned around there mate.

[213374U]

Right, right. So they are going to allow the military to curb illegal immigration by doing... what exactly?

 

I live in a country where illegal immigration is a very serious problem, and I understand where all this is coming from. At some point, we had literally tides of illegals overrunning the 2,5 meter-high fences, hundreds of people at a time. So, eventually, a few army units were deployed. I don't know exactly what were they supposed to do, but I know they were not authorized to fire on trespassers. The next week, the fences were overrun again. The only difference: a few injured soldiers.

 

So now, what I'd like to know is, how good is the military at controlling (as opposed to shooting at) groups of unarmed civilians?

[LoneWolf16]

Civilians won't know if the weapons are carrying blanks or live ammunition...just fire into the air with blanks. Only a thought.

Edited May 15, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Dark_Raven]

Stopping illegals is a good thing but using the military to enforce our laws is not their job. Their job is to protect the country and our interests overseas. The job of upholding laws and regulations is done at the local level. You start having the military do the job of the local law enforcement, it starts to look like a militaristic state.

[Azarkon]

Guess how fast they'll discover that the soldiers can't shoot?

 

In order to be effective, soldiers must have the authorization to shoot people crossing the border. If they are authorized to do that, then it'll be a massacre.

 

Of course, deploying the army to the border is just another way of indicating that Bush is "tough on <insert group here>." I doubt it'll make any difference in the long run aside from wasting more tax dollars.

 

You might find this interesting: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/194909.shtml

 

because it's what the founding fathers did...

 

The founding fathers also decreed that black slaves were 3/5th of a person and not capable of being citizens.

 

Stop acting like the law is God's will. The advantage of a democracy is that you have the ability to change the law (for example, Bush has the ability to grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants, thereby making them lawful citizens/immigrants). So long as you're unwilling to question it, that freedom is worthless.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

If it comes to shoot on sght it wouldn't bother me any. They shouldm't be trying to get in our country illegally in the first place.

[LoneWolf16]

Why would it be a massacre? Who says they'd shoot to kill? And why on Earth would you be hopping the border in the first place with armed guards standing on the other side? That's like bending over for a bull when wearing red trousers. Stupid.

 

because it's what the founding fathers did...

 

The founding fathers also decreed that black slaves were 3/5th of a person and not capable of being citizens.

 

Stop acting like the law is God's will. The advantage of a democracy is that you have the ability to change the law (for example, Bush has the ability to grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants, thereby making them lawful citizens/immigrants). So long as you're unwilling to question it, that freedom is worthless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for clipping out the rest of the quote...

 

You know, the part about amendments? Surprise, they do happen. )

 

Changes can be made of course, but if he were to do that, then what about all the others still coming in? What do you propose we do about that? I am not unwilling to question the law. I do all the damned time. It's just that this particular law has its place and has its use.

 

The laws themselves become useless if they aren't enforced.

Edited May 15, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Calax]

Hmmm next the Freedom Wall... (ie the berlin wall with even MORE boomsticks)

[Azarkon]

Why would it be a massacre? Who says they'd shoot to kill? And why on Earth would you be hopping the border in the first place with armed guards standing on the other side? That's like bending over for a bull when wearing red trousers. Stupid.

 

Because shooting moving targets is so easy that you can always just aim for the knees, right? I recommend you examine the following article:

 

http://www.americas.org/item_121

 

When armed guards patrol the borders, people get killed. No questions about it. The only argument that makes sense is Hades' - why should we care?

 

It's just that this particular law has its place and has its use.

 

Then debate its use instead of hiding behind the argument that IT'S THE LAW. Recognize that the illegal immigrant "problem" was tolerated, even encouraged, for a long time by the government for the sake of cheap labor. That they're cracking down now is a political maneuver, not a legal issue, and therefore any arguments regarding whether the law is just must take into account its political and social context.

 

Not merely the fact that the law exists.

[Judge Hades]

It is about time the law is enforced. Just becuase it wasn't enforced years ago does not mean it shouldn't be enforced now. If we can make sure that it can be continually enforced with the border guards having the ability to defend our borders with an armed response then so much the better.

[Azarkon]

But why?

 

If the law was overturned tomorrow, would you shed a tear? Or would you accept it nonchalantly and make a 180 with regards to your attitude towards "illegals" (now legals). Have you no opinion other than the desire that all laws be enforced?

Edited May 16, 2006 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

No.

 

However I do hold this opinion. If one is to move into a new country to live and work that person should have the courtesy to learn the language and customs of that country to a proficient level before moving to said country.

 

Such as if I was to move to live and work in Quebec I would make sure I know French at a proficient level first. If a person is to come into my country to live and work he or she needs to have a proficient level of expertise of the English language.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Craigboy2]

This is a very serious issue.  We need to stop illegal immigration at any means necessary.  If that means using the military then so be it.  I rather have them do that than be over in Iraq.

 

If people want to live and work in the US then let them do so legally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it takes a long time to become a legal citizen.

[Judge Hades]

You don't need to be a legal citizen to work and live in the US legally.

 

I have a friend who is an immigrant who cam eto the US legally and he has lived and worked here for years.

[Azarkon]

However I do hold this opinion.  If one is to move into a new country to live and work that person should have the courtesy to learn the language and customs of that country to a proficient level before moving to said country.

 

Such as if I was to move to live and work in Quebec I would make sure I know French at a proficient level first.  If a person is to come into my country to live and work he or she needs to have a proficient level of expertise of the English language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty hard to do so when your country has no schools for the poor, I'd think.

 

There are two types of non-refugee immigrants. The first is well-to-do in his or her own country, and comes to the US in search of even greater wealth and opportunity. Such an immigrant does indeed go through the troubles of learning English and the American custom before entering, because he or she's already part of a nation's elite, and can afford to do so.

 

The second type is what we're talking about: the dirt poor immigrants looking for either a way out of their permanent poverty or at least a way of supporting their impoverished families back home. You can't expect these types of people to have English schooling - if they did, they wouldn't be trying to immigrate.

 

So the question is: do you allow only the former type of immigrants in your country? And if so, how far are you willing to go in terms of moral decency? We have laws, post WW 2, that guarantee the safety of refugees because despite being illegal immigrants, to send them back would be a death sentence and no government with a semblance of humanity would condemn whole slews of people to their deaths (as happened with the Jews when they were turned back by other countries trying to flee out of German-occupied Europe).

 

Illegal immigrants are not exactly formal refugees, but they're close - their country is not only dirt poor, but run by drug lords and gangs under whom no people can truly be free and happy. It's therefore extremely hard to deter them - and as the article quoted earlier states, they're willing to go to extraordinary lengths to enter the US. Thus, it's one thing to say that these problems are not the problems of the US, and another to mobilize the army (who, unlike the average police, don't fool around with their weapons) against unarmed civilizations.

[LoneWolf16]

Then debate its use instead of hiding behind the argument that IT'S THE LAW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not hiding...I actually believe in a certain degree of order brought about by the use of laws. This particular law is a black and white one, as I've said before. Either you come in legally, or you don't. There are ways to do both...but one shouldn't be surprised by a less than welcoming reception should one choose the latter.

[Judge Hades]

What goes on in other countries is not my concern. What goes in in my country is my concern. If the leadership in another country is piss poor then the people should try to make sure they get new leadership and axe the old ones instead of taking the coward's way out and flee to another country.

 

I treat everyone the same and no one is treated better or worse than another. My expectations out of a person is no different from what I expect out of myself. No more and no less.

[Azarkon]

What goes on in other countries is not my concern.  What goes in in my country is my concern.  If the leadership in another country is piss poor then the people should try to make sure they get new leadership and axe the old ones instead of taking the coward's way out and flee to another country.

 

I treat everyone the same and no one is treated better or worse than another.  My expectations out of a person is no different from what I expect out of myself.  No more and no less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From an individual's perspective, that's a good attitude to have. There are some problems, however, that you can't solve that way. Mexico is one of them, unfortunately.

 

I believe we will see that in the coming years.

[Judge Hades]

Mexico is mexico's Problem and not mine. If Mexicans can't get their own country in order then let them rot. If they can't come to the US legally then let them face the armed guards at the border.