Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on June 10, 2005, 10:44:28 pm
-
Vigilante groups are bad enough, but when you have them patroling the border to hunt mexicans, and then call themselfs Minutemen Project, that can´t be good.
Wetback hunting season is open. Apply on your local redneck office to join.
:wtf:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8162019/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8162019/)
WASHINGTON - Volunteers in the civilian-led border watch group known as the “Minuteman Project” are called vigilantes, or worse, by their critics -- patriots or heroes by their supporters. Regardless of the moniker, the Minutemen have driven the issue of illegal immigration from the margins of America’s conscience onto the national stage.
PS: That´s one big gun that guy has there...
Somehow this reminds me of a flash game someone posted a while back, to see how many mex you can kill in each border crossing...
-
EDIT: Read my next post (about 10 posts down).
-
Actually, despite the bad press they're getting, they not doing anything wrong as far as I know (if ofcourse you believe in the importance of national sovreignty, I myself am somewhat ambigous on the subject). I checked out their website a while back, and as far as I can tell they have a pretty strict "do not engage, call for a real border guard" policy.
-
Rictor's got it right. You guys should really do some research on the Minutemen before you criticize them. They're not vigilantes; vigilantes, by definition, mete out justice according to their own standards, on their own terms. These guys are simply serving as extra eyes and ears for the real Border Patrol guards.
-
Then they don´t need a gun, do they? So why is that guy wearing a cannon? Why do they name themselfs after a nuclear weapon, designed to wipe out whole countries?
Why did they form a movement called Minutemen Civil Defense Corps? These are pretty beligerant names, don´t you think?
I guess you will only believe vigilantes are bad when the first corpses start popping out of the desert...
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Then they don´t need a gun, do they? So why is that guy wearing a cannon? Why do they name themselfs after a nuclear weapon, designed to wipe out whole countries?
Why did they form a movement called Minutemen Civil Defense Corps? These are pretty beligerant names, don´t you think?
I guess you will only believe vigilantes are bad when the first corpses start popping out of the desert...
:rolleyes:
Ever heard of that little conflict called the American Revolution? This organization takes its name after the group of American colonists who were able to be called upon to fight for freedom at a moment's notice...
And these guys are doing a good job. They're not "racist hicks"--just people doing their civic duties and helping the thin-stretched Border Patrols.
-
Whoa, there, Swamp_Thing. Calm down. Let's take this one step at a time...
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Then they don´t need a gun, do they? So why is that guy wearing a cannon?
Probably for self-defense. If an illegal immigrant decides to charge him instead of fleeing, he's going to need something to defend himself with.
The culture's rather different in that part of the country. It's not uncommon to see people wearing guns while they go about their day-to-day lives. So it's completely natural to bring their gun along with them on this project.
And that's not a particularly huge gun. I've seen much bigger ones.Why do they name themselfs after a nuclear weapon, designed to wipe out whole countries?
Um, no. Where do you think the nuclear missile got its name? They named themselves after the militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen_%28militia%29) that defended the U.S. during the American Revolution.Why did they form a movement called Minutemen Civil Defense Group?
They're assisting in the defense of the national borders. Not defending the borders themselves, but helping those whose job it is to do so.These are pretty beligerant names, don´t you think?
No, I don't. Those names are quite tame. Especially compared with some of the other political groups out there.I guess you will only believe vigilantes are bad when the first corpses start popping out of the desert...
Again, they're not vigilantes. And considering that they've been stationed on the border for months already, don't you think we would have heard about "corpses popping out of the desert" by now?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Whoa, there, Swamp_Thing. Calm down. Let's take this one step at a time...Probably for self-defense. If an illegal immigrant decides to charge him instead of fleeing, he's going to need something to defend himself with.
The culture's rather different in that part of the country. It's not uncommon to see people wearing guns while they go about their day-to-day lives. So it's completely natural to bring their gun along with them on this project.
And that's not a particularly huge gun. I've seen much bigger ones.
Well, an additional reason would be that a gun has a little bit more stopping authority (not just by firing; sometimes just the sight of one in the hands of someone telling you to stop) than shouting does. It could keep the illegals in one place until the authorities arrive.
-
Really, get the facts straight guys.
Immigration is a problem here. And the people coming in are coming in illegally. It's not about wether it's right or wrong to allow illegal immigrants into the nation. (That's what immigration refrom is for. If you dislike the policies, try tochange them, don't try to get around them). These people have not broken any laws. They've not caused any harm, neither.
America is in need of a lot of reforms. Illegal immigrants are stressing systems that were never designed to account for them. The minutemen are only temporarily fighting a symptom of a greater problem.
-
Common, you know damn well that this is bound to get out of hand. Someday one of those guys is going to get carried away, he´s going to kill someone. Then pretty soon the other side starts fighting back on the same terms. And you end up with a blood bath. Just a week ago, there was an article on border incidents. Several people were killed in the last year, and the mexicans started bringing in guns themselfs. Now the place is a war zone, and you are bringing in a bunch of armed civilians into that burning pot? Stuff is bound to happen. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day you´ll reap what you sow. It´s always like that.
-
well until this side of the world decides to "dismember" all borders, and create the American Union (IE Canada, USA, Mexico, Central America's, and some south american countries, especially COLUMBIA coke dude coke!), they should just build one big ass wall and keep em out.
u dont see any canadians runnin for the border as hard as other ethinicities do, mexicans to arabs to asias, to other south americans hit the border in the south HEAVY.
-
Do you honestly believe that the civilian border patrol is made simply of redneck Texans who want to go out with a gun and blast Mexicans?
Them damn Mexicos! 'Member the Alamo! :rolleyes:
Seriously, if anything, armed civilians at the border with government support would drive immigrants anyway, not signal to them to bring guns with them. And if shots are fired, then the Mexican government has its own problems to resolve (namely guarding their end of the border).
It's not all going to be an American's fault... just remember that kids.
Originally posted by deep_eyes
well until this side of the world decides to "dismember" all borders, and create the American Union (IE Canada, USA, Mexico, Central America's, and some south american countries, especially COLUMBIA coke dude coke!), they should just build one big ass wall and keep em out.
u dont see any canadians runnin for the border as hard as other ethinicities do, mexicans to arabs to asias, to other south americans hit the border in the south HEAVY.
Actually, we do have that kind of thing. There's the OAS (Organization of American States), and then there's NAFTA (thank you, President Clinton :rolleyes: ).
And what reason do Canadians have to run to the US? :lol: Seriously, they're better off up there. :)
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
Do you honestly believe that the civilian border patrol is made simply of redneck Texans who want to go out with a gun and blast Mexicans?
Them damn Mexicos! 'Member the Alamo! :rolleyes:
Seriously, if anything, armed civilians at the border with government support would drive immigrants anyway, not signal to them to bring guns with them. And if shots are fired, then the Mexican government has its own problems to resolve (namely guarding their end of the border).
It's not all going to be an American's fault... just remember that kids.
well in terms of legality, if the mexicans do bring guns to the US border, and these minute men engage in a fire fight with em, the mexicans would actually be at fault from the begining because it is illegal in mexico to own a firearm if your not a law officer or federal officer/military.
unlike the us with the right to bear arms law, mexicans fundamentally wouldnt really attempt an armed crossing of the border knowing that if theyre picked up on the mexican side befor they reach the US, they'd be in tihauana prison in a heart beat, never to be seen again... then again getting bagged here with a gun, or killing a citizen (vigilante or not) will only make his own imprisonment "garunnnnnnteeeddddd". and the mexican president will be kissin bush's texas yella belly a-s-s for the remainder of bushes term.
-
I stand corrected. From the title and the brief read I did, I thought that it was a bunch of "vigilante" groups that were killing everyone who crossed the border. My post has been corrected :)
And minutemen are...militia, I believe, from the American Revolution. The missile was named after them as well.
EDIT: What's ironic is that this is forming, even though Bush is practically making everyone who comes into the country a citizen nowadays (in terms of his laws).
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
...and then there's NAFTA (thank you, President Clinton :rolleyes: ).)
*ahum* Give credit where it's due. NAFTA was Bush Numero Uno's.
-
Ah... so it was :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Someday one of those guys is going to get carried away, he´s going to kill someone.
You know, that same logic is used to suggest that letting soldier back into society is a bad idea. The odds of someone who has been trained in the use, maintenance, and culture of firearms is one whole hell of a lot less likely to "get carried away" than the average yahoo who passes a background check and thinks he's hot stuff cause he can buy a pistol, that person is a lot more dangerous.
Also, if you'd done any research at all, you'd have know that the Minutemen are doing FBI class background checks on everyone that shows up. If there is even a hint that they might have other intentions than patrolling the border and reporting incoming illegals to the Border Patrol, they are turned away.
The dangerous ones are the ACLU and their ilk who have made it their business to shadow the Minutemen and make their lives hell, not to mention endangering themselves and others by trying to force a confrontation.
-
I would also like to point out that, supriseingly, this issue weakens Bush politicaly especaly within his current power block.
-
Lets look at some figures, shall we?
Acording to the US border patrol:
The first number is for 2004, the second number is for the first 5?months of 2005:
Rock throwing 77 95
Physical assaults 21 20
Vehicle rammings 9 26
Shootings 9 20
Other assaults 2 2
Total: 118 163
Notice the huge discrepance in number of shootings. In 2004 (before the minutemen) , you had 9 incidents. In 2005, in a few months alone, you have over 200% more. Makes you wonder, doesn´t it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7997408/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7997408/)
Now let´s look at how effective they are:
What is known is that volunteers are unwittingly setting off motion detector sensors along the border. These sensors, hidden along major pathways, send alarms back to a Border Patrol command center. Each time a sensor goes off, agents are dispatched to investigate.
Agents responding to those false alarms are taken away from their routine patrols, Border Patrol Supervisory Agent Jose Maheda told the Associated Press. “It’s taken away from our normal operations,” he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7409293/page/3/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7409293/page/3/)
So, not only their presence is spurring more violence, they are actually hurting the US Border patrol, by setting off false alarms...
-
why are you, and it seems only you, so incredably pissed about this?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Vehicle rammings 9 26
Shootings 9 20
Notice the huge discrepance in number of shootings. In 2004 (before the minutemen) , you had 9 incidents. In 2005, in a few months alone, you have over 200% more. Makes you wonder, doesn´t it?
What's your point? Vehicle rammings went up by the same amount. Are you saying we should take away the border patrol vehicles as well?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
why are you, and it seems only you, so incredably pissed about this?
Because i´ve suffered first hand what a group of vigilantes can do.
-
ah, that would be a valid reason I supose.
-
You know, never mind that i was once beaten up by vigilantes, that was not the reason why i posted, nor the reason why i´m so pissed. Actually, i wasn´t pissed at all, untill i saw everybody here sidding with them. What got me pissed, was to see that you have no idea who you are sidding with...
Take a little trip at their website. And note especially the groups with whom they side with. To number a few:
Patriot Art
MoveOff Network
The Rant
National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Patriot Territory.
...amongst others.
http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/partners.php (http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/partners.php)
Take a close look at those sites.
We are not talking of a group of concerned citizens, here. We are talking extreme right wing nuts, white supremacists, neo-cons, religious fanatics, all the people you guys denounced on this very forum for countless times. And now you side with them?
I´m disapointed with you...
:sigh:
-
If they are vigilantes that is Swamp Thing, I would share your concern. If this got to that point I am sure public opinion would turn against them and moron politicians would react. And if they ever killed any one I would hope and pray to god that they would be convicted. But honestly, I have no problem with immigration from mexico. I wish, and many other wish that they would just use the proper channels. That is why I actually liked Bush's Guest worker program he put forth in the 2000 election. Honestly, the US needs these immigrants. They do, in all fairness, take jobs that most people don't want, but have to be done.
If I discounted or refused the help of the ACLU when they sued the dept of social services in Philly in regaurds to children that were not being placed for adoption as they ought to in circumstances, simply because they side with things that I don't like IE socialism, would I be right?
-
Heres the solution: Build a wall.. a BIG wall... with a 50ft ditch on the mexican border maybe even filled with water or something.... barbed wire, land mines, automated machine guns, 24/7 UAV coverage, Satellite converage, Redoubts, Electrified cages around the wall... etc. Turn the border into a fortress. Then make a doorway where legals can get in and out.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Lets look at some figures, shall we?
Acording to the US border patrol:
The first number is for 2004, the second number is for the first 5?months of 2005:
Rock throwing 77 95
Physical assaults 21 20
Vehicle rammings 9 26
Shootings 9 20
Other assaults 2 2
Total: 118 163
Notice the huge discrepance in number of shootings. In 2004 (before the minutemen) , you had 9 incidents. In 2005, in a few months alone, you have over 200% more. Makes you wonder, doesn´t it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7997408/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7997408/)
Now let´s look at how effective they are:
What is known is that volunteers are unwittingly setting off motion detector sensors along the border. These sensors, hidden along major pathways, send alarms back to a Border Patrol command center. Each time a sensor goes off, agents are dispatched to investigate.
Agents responding to those false alarms are taken away from their routine patrols, Border Patrol Supervisory Agent Jose Maheda told the Associated Press. “It’s taken away from our normal operations,” he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7409293/page/3/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7409293/page/3/)
So, not only their presence is spurring more violence, they are actually hurting the US Border patrol, by setting off false alarms...
Two things here:
1) It's important to know how to read statistics. If there's increased contact between illegal immigrants and border patrols (as there would be if they got reported more often) then obviously there'd also be a proportionate increase in violence. I'd like to have a look at the percentage of incidents compared to the number of contacts between illegals and border patrols.
2) The Minutemen are being extraordinarily careful in the way they're doing this. They're conducting checks on their members. They're getting permission before heading out to the borders. They're staying out of the way of border patrols. They're not confronting the illegals personally. They want to make it very clear that they're trying to help. Unfortunately, certain groups of people who don't want them to succeed have been tailing them, trying to catch them in a screwup; or when that doesn't work, trying to provoke an outright confrontation. In doing so, they are the ones setting off the motion detectors. The Minutemen are careful enough to find out about the motion detectors beforehand.
I sympathize with your hostility toward vigilantes, Swamp_Thing, and I too am angry at those who completely disregard morality and legality in favor of their own corrupt version of "law". I stand by you 100% on that. But you have to know who your enemy is. These people are not them.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Heres the solution: Build a wall.. a BIG wall... with a 50ft ditch on the mexican border maybe even filled with water or something.... barbed wire, land mines, automated machine guns, 24/7 UAV coverage, Satellite converage, Redoubts, Electrified cages around the wall... etc. Turn the border into a fortress. Then make a doorway where legals can get in and out.
That's what should be done. :) But unfortunately the political establishment is not making it a high priority.
It's rather ironic. They're all up in arms about preventing terrorists from entering the country via airports, but the weakest link in the chain, by far, is the unsecured border with Mexico. :rolleyes:
-
@DeepSpace9er: and pay for it with.... eh... magic, yeass.. magic... ledn2Ag.......
a fence would be good I guess, something like what the Isrealis are building.
anyway,
@Swamp_Thing: maybe were sideing with them because, on this one issue, we agree. we might not agree with there motivation, but we do agree there is a problem and we don't think there is anything wrong with there solution as it is being currently implemented.seriusly, step back, look at the situation, all they are doing is sitting out in the desert and calling the cops (border patrole) when they see someone breaking into there nation illigaly. just because you don't like these people (conservitive Texans) doesn't mean what they are doing is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
It's rather ironic. They're all up in arms about preventing terrorists from entering the country via airports, but the weakest link in the chain, by far, is the unsecured border with Mexico. :rolleyes:
but the thing is as far as we can tell they aren't going across the border yet, our air port security is still so shity that Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser could still basicly buy a airline ticket from Tehran to D.C. and no one even blinks. why would they even bother getting in here illigaly when the legal methods are actualy easier for them. by the time anyone figures out there here they've already martyred themselves.
-
You know, that same logic is used to suggest that letting soldier back into society is a bad idea. The odds of someone who has been trained in the use, maintenance, and culture of firearms is one whole hell of a lot less likely to "get carried away" than the average yahoo who passes a background check and thinks he's hot stuff cause he can buy a pistol, that person is a lot more dangerous.
You have a point, but here is where it falls apart: Soldiers are held to a certain level of professionalism (at least in the US). The militias are not. Who holds the militias accountable? Ultimatly no one. I can almost garentee this lack of accountability will lead to trouble sooner or later.
The point is that they might be benevolent now, but what about 2 or 3 years from now?
-
then they get arrested
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Unfortunately, certain groups of people who don't want them to succeed have been tailing them, trying to catch them in a screwup; or when that doesn't work, trying to provoke an outright confrontation. In doing so, they are the ones setting off the motion detectors. The Minutemen are careful enough to find out about the motion detectors beforehand.
How can you possibly know that, unless you are a border guard or a minuteman yourself? The fact is, the border patrol are saying this, not i. The info about the sensors being triped by minutemen came from the US Border patrol themselfs. Not from me, and not from "certain grups of people".
Seems to me they are not as carefull as you think they are.
And how can you say they are just sitting there and calling the cops, and not confronting the illegals, when the numbers show especifically a rise in numbers of those confrontations? What changed between 2004 and 2005? Surelly not the number of border guards. Their numbers remain the same. Their tactics and security equipments remain the same. So, something else is causing this surge in confrontations. As i see it, it can only be one of two things:
Either the number of illegals has triplicated, (and i agree the number of people has risen, but not anywhere near that high) or the vigilantes are causing it.
It´s simple mathmatics: you multiply the number of people and weapons in the area, and the result is more violence.
If you think the presence of a few armed civilians is going to act as deterrement, you have a thing coming. These people risk their lives trying to cross the border. They starve, they die of thirst, they board sardine-can packed trucks in a blazing heat, they get into sinking boats. They do everything, and then some, just to get across. You think a bunch of guys sitting in a beach chair with binoculars are going to deter them from trying to get across?
I understand where you are comming from, you are angry that so many illegals are getting your jobs, that crime gets worst, and all that. Those are legitime concerns. But this is not the way. Build a wall, hire more guards, buy more equipment, those are viable solutions. Why don´t you try to help Mexico become economically stronger? That way people wouldn´t need to go to the US.
There are many ways to adress this issue. Vigilantes are not the answer. The only thing coming out of this will be more violence, and more death.
Not to mention that i don´t believe for one second in their motivations to do this... They are not there to help law enforcement, they are there to enforce their own idea of what the law should be.
-
nuke the damn border, its all useless desert anyway :D
oh and i think mexicans are cool
-
look I just want to know who is in my country, or at the very least for some government agency to know, why the hell they can't just come in here the legal way I don't understand. but they are comeing in illigaly and this can not be allowed to continue.
I don't want random people enforceing the border, I want the government to do one of the few jobs I think it should be doing (namely protecting it's own god damned soverienty), I would like to see, oh... what 3,000... 4,000 national gaurd level troops patroleing the border. if this band of 'rednecks' brings atention to this problem then I'm all for them, they don't seem to be doing any harm at the moment, they aren't breaking any laws, so who the hell cares?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
How can you possibly know that, unless you are a border guard or a minuteman yourself? The fact is, the border patrol are saying this, not i. The info about the sensors being tripped by minutemen came from the US Border patrol themselfs. Not from me, and not from "certain grups of people".
Seems to me they are not as carefull as you think they are.
I highly doubt that this is the case. I suppose that some of the Minutemen could have tripped these accidentally... but the Minutemen are ordered to stay in their positions and watch, not sneak around.
It's also possible that the media have conflated two different reports: ones where the border patrols say they are afraid that Minutemen would set off motion detectors, and ones that indicate the ACLU and others have triggered false alarms.And how can you say they are just sitting there and calling the cops, and not confronting the illegals, when the numbers show especifically a rise in numbers of those confrontations?
Gilchrist said the Minutemen are under strict orders to merely identify and follow illegal border crossers and alert federal agents. They should not interact with the immigrants except to offer food, water or medical care. If there's a couple of "bad apples" who turn up in the group, Gilchrist said, they will face prosecution if they step outside the law.
They're to identify and report immigrants only. The border patrol people are the ones who do the actual confrontation. More reports of immigrants = more confrontations.If you think the presence of a few armed civilians is going to act as deterrement, you have a thing coming.
As opposed to the presence of a few armed border patrol guards? These guys are helping the border patrol do exactly what the RAF did in World War II: deploy a small force to the area where it's most needed, each time it's needed. This is more effective than simply spreading the force out even more thinly.Vigilantes are not the answer. The only thing coming out of this will be more violence, and more death.
Not to mention that i don´t believe for one second in their motivations to do this... They are not there to help law enforcement, they are there to enforce their own idea of what the law should be.
You seem unable to grasp the concept that there may be some people who do have the integrity for this. They care enough to volunteer to help the border patrols and they are scrupulous enough to stick to their assigned tasks (watch and report only).
-
I don't trust anyone who really wants to do that. But hey, I'm a naturalist.
-
Dey tuk ar jerbs!
Dey tok our jurbs!
Durk uh durrr!
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
They are not there to help law enforcement, they are there to enforce their own idea of what the law should be.
What does the law actually say? As far as I know, crossing the boarder through either not going through customs or through the gates is illegal. So what are these guys doing wrong by looking across the boarder and then calling the boarder patrol and reporting a flagrant dissegaurd for the law by the crossing of the boarder? Granted, these guys are worried about jobs going to cheap labor than cut throat murders getting across.
Funny reading to http://whatheidisays.blogspot.com/2005/04/silly-democrats-border-patrol.html
-
It's interesting. The main argument against vigilantism is that the people actually pretending to be law enforcement are not trained for dealing with those situations. Just a glance at the number of violent incidents between the Minutemen and the Immigrants does help to suggest that.
Possibly if the government were to set up a 'Civilian Border Patrol', sort of like our 'Specials' (which would actually work if the Police were to put one special officer with each patrol, rather than leaving them on their own)? At least that way they would be accountable for their actions, and there would be an official channel for any complaints, which may help a little.
My own thoughts at the moment are that these people have found a nice little rock to hide under of 'Protection US sovereignty' as an excuse to go out and legally raise a little hell. Not that what they are doing is 'wrong' in the eyes of the law, but I feel that their motives are based in slightly less grand ideals than they say they are
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
then they get arrested
In theory, but how can anyone control them when they are out there if they are left unsupervised by professionals?
which would actually work if the Police were to put one special officer with each patrol, rather than leaving them on their own
Exactly.
-
it's very simple, they are not currently breaking the law, therefore they can not be aressted, if they start to break the law, then they can and will be aressted.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it's very simple, they are not currently breaking the law, therefore they can not be aressted, if they start to break the law, then they can and will be aressted.
You missed the point. How can they be arrested for breaking the law if no one outside of the militia knows they have broken the law?
-
ok, we don't like something, but it isn't actualy against the law, so lets just assume they are breaking the law anyway and arrest them, I mean darn it's Texas, that's not _that_ far from gitmo, and that's were everyone is going to end up eventualy.
it's in the south, they are conservitive, obviusly it's a bunch of good'ole boys get'n rummed up and going 'wetback hunting'. yehaw!
-
Meaning what exactly? (Not that I personally have any problems with bad-mouthing texas)
I'm sorry bob, but I'm not quite seeing what you were trying to say.......
-
you are saying 'how do we know they aren't breaking the law' how do we know anyone is breaking the law, I mean what are you sudgesting that we put them under house arresst? I mean that's the only way to make sure there not going to be put into a situation were they might break a law.
what they are doing is analagous to you sitting in a bad part of town with a cell phone and calling the cops any time you see something bad happen. they are going out into the desert looking for people breaking into the country then calling the authorities in to deal with it and following the people intull the patrole arives. that is what they are doing. there is nothing wrong with that.
you are saying they might start shooting or something, but you can't arrest people baised on what they _might_ do.
-
You can if your name is Swamp_Thing or if you are some other ultra-left wing communist nutjob.
I'm sorry that was a personal attack...:(
That is analogous to "Hate Crimes". Adding more punishment because the crime was motivated by some prejudice. Might as well throw the whole damn world in prison if we start punishing people because they are prejudiced.
Understand, I have no problem with immigration. The illegals have strong familial bonds which is something the USA is lacking right now, but I want them to come in legally. For their saftey if nothing else, crossing the Mohave with nothing but the shirt on your back is a lethal prospect.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You can if your name is Swamp_Thing or if you are some other ultra-left wing communist nutjob.
I'm sorry that was a personal attack...:(
[color=66ff00]Yeah so don't do it.
Attacking someone then apologising in the same post is kinda like spraypainting 'sorry I didn't mean to vandalise this wall'. :rolleyes:
[/color]
-
Those statistics Swamp_Thing posted are not a very good representation of what violence rages due to illegals. I mean would you rather have someone on the border engaging the illegals or would you rather them get mixed into a large city where one spark of violence can set of a huge chain of events.
I can't really give educated answers on things that go on near the border because I don't live there, but all I can say is if the government won't do it someone has to do it even if it is a civilian.
Still yet I like the prospect of putting patrolmen with a group of civilians, maybe assign sectors.. i dunno. I do completely agree that vigilantes are very bad but I don't consider the minutemen vigilantes because they are abiding the law as far as I can tell.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You can if your name is Swamp_Thing or if you are some other ultra-left wing communist nutjob.
I think you have a strange concept of communism, Lib.
Originally posted by Liberator
That is analogous to "Hate Crimes". Adding more punishment because the crime was motivated by some prejudice. Might as well throw the whole damn world in prison if we start punishing people because they are prejudiced.
You seem to be misunderstanding the importance of motive in crime. By your standard, it would mean that the woman who stabs her husband after being raped or (repeatedly) assaulted by him, has the same legal responsibility as someone who beats up a black, asian, latino, etc person for their race (and soforth for political persuasion, sexual orientation, etc).
We all have prejudices, much as we may wish to avoid them, but that doesn't give an excuse to hurt or kill because of them (and most people realise that). Policing hate crimes doesn't equate to policing prejudice (the latter is handled by education), but the inability to control it as a normal person does.
The reason for the exceptional punishments accorded to hate crimes is largely because the motivation is something which is almost impossible to rehabilitate; crimes fuelled by alcohol or drugs give some leeway to rehabilitation (although they still deservedly get punishment), crimes of passion may (this is something that would be evaluated for sentencing) represent a loss of normal judgement, etc.
But hate crimes, and hate criminals, represent a motivation that is far more 'inbred' and which as a result poses a greater risk to the community and a lesser chance of succesful rehabilitation.
Originally posted by Liberator
Understand, I have no problem with immigration. The illegals have strong familial bonds which is something the USA is lacking right now, but I want them to come in legally. For their saftey if nothing else, crossing the Mohave with nothing but the shirt on your back is a lethal prospect.
I'd be slightly worried if you wanted to apply moral/ethical eugenics (beyond the obvious of criminal records) when allowing immigrants in, but I'm sure that's not what you mean.
-
You can if your name is Swamp_Thing or if you are some other ultra-left wing communist nutjob.
I'm sorry that was a personal attack...
Yet again with the unprovoked personal attacks. I wonder how much longer until you get your ass banned.
I think you have a strange concept of communism, Lib.
What do you expect from someone who is from Alabama? Intelligence?
-
Easy chief, let us keep it cool, eh?
Point being, I find the use of 'communist' as an insult as amusingly misguided as it is archaic. I can't help but think it is far more offensive to the user, than the target.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
What do you expect from someone who is from Alabama? Intelligence?
:wtf:
-
Easy chief, let us keep it cool, eh?
If Liberator can keep making all kinds of unprovoked personal attacks against people without penalty, then why can't I?
But you are right Aldo.
-
Because either way it's against the rules and Lib already got warned (or so it seems) for it.
There is no eye for an eye on these boards. Suck it up and dont stoop to his level.
-
Okay, people have been warned. Anyone else who makes a personal attack in this thread will get monkeyed.
-
Goob's a jerk! [ /pushing his luck ]
-
"Monkeyed?"
-
Originally posted by Raa
Goob's a jerk! [ /pushing his luck ]
Monkeyed. :D
-
ROFL
-
Eh...it was mostly tongue-in-cheek...I apologize if that didn't translate over like I meant it to.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that it is only in recent years that America has taken such a light, "open door" approach to immigration. I remember reading somewhere that if an imigrant came through Ellis Island and couldn't read or had other qualities that would have made them a liability on society they were put on a ship back where they came from.
Like so many things that are assumed to be "rights"(voting for instance), there are a great many responsibilities that go along with them. Part of the responsibility of those who wish to come to live in this country as a citizen is that they do so according to the law, and to treat those that do not any differently is a kick in the nuts to every person in this country that is currently, or is decended from immigrants(ie almost everyone).
-
Lib, why is it that whever someone stands for a political ideal diferent from your own, you always feel like you have to resort to personnal attacks?
I see these guys as vigilantes. Why does that make me a communist nutjob?
This is not about politics, it´s about the Law. And the law does not condone private citizens taking the law into their own hands. It´s that simple. If these guys were serious about helping the authorities, why don´t they choose a more urgent matter, like catching drug dealers selling drugs in schools? Or help preventing corporate fraud? Or help prevent robberies, and homicides? Why don´t they keep an eye on gang bangers, and help prevent a million other crimes?
Why did they feel like preventing a bunch of poor, hungry, and destituted mexicans wanting a better life, will help the US be a safer place? They had a million other more worthy causes to follow, a million other violent offenders to help encarcerate, yet they chose to persecute a bunch of hungry poor people, that the only crime they are guilty of is being born dirt poor and on the wrong side of the border. That says a lot about their motivations.
Why don´t you force your president to hire the 5.000 more border patrolsmen, that the congress agreed to fund? The congress aproved a new budget to allow the hiring of thousands more guards, but Bush refused to hire them. Why?
When did the "give us your poor, your hungry masses" lost its meaning? When did the "give us your poor" started meaning everybody except latin americans? I don´t see people fighting the immigration of canadians, or europeans. It´s like, if you are white and rich, you are welcomed. But if you are poor and black or hispanic or asian, the door is closed...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Okay, people have been warned. Anyone else who makes a personal attack in this thread will get monkeyed.
I'll back off. But what the heck does "monkeyed" mean? Unless I don't want to know.......
-
What we need is another Ellis Island. There needs to be a central point of entry, but this would cost money. Also, there isn't an ocean to control where immigrants would come in. We could also promote improving quality of life in other countries.
And please play nice or you know an admin will lock this thread.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Eh...it was mostly tongue-in-cheek...I apologize if that didn't translate over like I meant it to.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that it is only in recent years that America has taken such a light, "open door" approach to immigration. I remember reading somewhere that if an imigrant came through Ellis Island and couldn't read or had other qualities that would have made them a liability on society they were put on a ship back where they came from.
Like so many things that are assumed to be "rights"(voting for instance), there are a great many responsibilities that go along with them. Part of the responsibility of those who wish to come to live in this country as a citizen is that they do so according to the law, and to treat those that do not any differently is a kick in the nuts to every person in this country that is currently, or is decended from immigrants(ie almost everyone).
Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?
I mean, as rich nations we (and by that I mean the likes of the UK, USA, Japan, France, Germany, etc) do have, IMO, an international responsibility as free and wealthy nations to help others. It's an international obligation, IIRC, determined by the UN treaties of which our countries are signatories. As such, I don't think we can say it's fair to only admit those we consider not to be a 'liability' - by natures, that's what refugees are.
Not that I'm advocating an completely open door policy that would allow anyone to come in (simply because it's not economically feasible to support all those people, especially if they need retraining to work), but I think that all too often immigration is used - in any country - as the easy excuse for why problems occur, because it's an easy method of scapegoatery and diversion.
-
I'm against 'em. Reason being, if they're so concerned about the immigration problem, and they really wanted to do something about it, they'd actually just join the border patrol. The fact that they're getting tooled up and roving around the desert looking for trouble would suggest to me that they have certain other objectives than merely reporting illegal entries....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?
I mean, as rich nations we (and by that I mean the likes of the UK, USA, Japan, France, Germany, etc) do have, IMO, an international responsibility as free and wealthy nations to help others. It's an international obligation, IIRC, determined by the UN treaties of which our countries are signatories. As such, I don't think we can say it's fair to only admit those we consider not to be a 'liability' - by natures, that's what refugees are.
Not that I'm advocating an completely open door policy that would allow anyone to come in (simply because it's not economically feasible to support all those people, especially if they need retraining to work), but I think that all too often immigration is used - in any country - as the easy excuse for why problems occur, because it's an easy method of scapegoatery and diversion.
I don't think any nation is obliged to support immigration at all, not even morally. If America (or whoever, it stands for any country) wants to simply close it's doors for whatever reason, that's their right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to currently maintain the "integrity" of a nation (culture, ethnic groups, language, religions etc) is to be poor enough that no one will want to move there at all. For all the talk of inclusiveness, non-disctrimination and all that, I doubt very many people, regardless of political idealogy, in Western Country X (let's say Britain) would support having a majority population of non-natives. Because, for the time being anyway, we've still got a sense of "national identity" and are loathe to change it. Beind the political correctness, most people I think still find one group of people preferable to another, I know I do, and would rather be in the company of (for example) white, Christian, middle-class folks than any others. I'm sure that Indians would rather be in the company of Indians, Russian in the company of Russians, Dominicans in the company of Dominicans etc.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?
I don't recall a time anywhere in American history where that has been a part of public policy. That is on the Statue of Liberty, IIRC.
That phrase more accurately refers to the "American Dream", which is what causes people to want to come here. It doesn't refer to imigration policy.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't think any nation is obliged to support immigration at all, not even morally. If America (or whoever, it stands for any country) wants to simply close it's doors for whatever reason, that's their right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to currently maintain the "integrity" of a nation (culture, ethnic groups, language, religions etc) is to be poor enough that no one will want to move there at all. For all the talk of inclusiveness, non-disctrimination and all that, I doubt very many people, regardless of political idealogy, in Western Country X (let's say Britain) would support having a majority population of non-natives. Because, for the time being anyway, we've still got a sense of "national identity" and are loathe to change it. Beind the political correctness, most people I think still find one group of people preferable to another, I know I do, and would rather be in the company of (for example) white, Christian, middle-class folks than any others. I'm sure that Indians would rather be in the company of Indians, Russian in the company of Russians, Dominicans in the company of Dominicans etc.
I believe nations are legally obliged to accept refugees under UN convention, for one thing; but that's a seperate issue from economic migration. Bear in mind this is simply my opinion, and in certain ways it's a direct, knee-jerk reaction to the pseudo racist attitude towards migration displayed in certain areas of the British tabloid press (in particular).
I don't think I said I supported the idea of 'total' migration, simply because social systems can't handle that. I just oppose the idea that we should pick and choose who to let in on the basis of how much they can help us, whilst rejecting those who would need our help the most.
(and I realise that's highly idealistic and pretty improbable as a blanket scenario - there are simply too many people for one thing - but I think it's possible to a degree, or at least we should have a desire to do so)
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't recall a time anywhere in American history where that has been a part of public policy. That is on the Statue of Liberty, IIRC.
That phrase more accurately refers to the "American Dream", which is what causes people to want to come here. It doesn't refer to imigration policy.
Why do you think I said idealism?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I believe nations are legally obliged to accept refugees under UN convention, for one thing; but that's a seperate issue from economic migration. Bear in mind this is simply my opinion, and in certain ways it's a direct, knee-jerk reaction to the pseudo racist attitude towards migration displayed in certain areas of the British tabloid press (in particular).
I don't think I said I supported the idea of 'total' migration, simply because social systems can't handle that. I just oppose the idea that we should pick and choose who to let in on the basis of how much they can help us, whilst rejecting those who would need our help the most.
What I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable and normal to pick and choose who to let it on the basis of how alike they are to us (whatever the host country may be).
There is certainly an element of rascism in this, but most everyone is rascist to a degree, in that they find certain groups preferable to others. If you're looking for a colour-blind society, I'm afraid we're a ways off. I see no particular reason to deny this, or equate it with the rascism of the KKK and others. Fact is, we still have a strong sense of tribalism, and identification with a tribe (by nationality, colour, religion or whatever) is inevitable.
As for the legal obligations, I am in no way suggesting that people be turned back to face execution. Keep in mind, I am myself an immigrant, living in a country made up largely (say 30%, approx) of immigrants from all over the world. But overall, I think refugees account for a miniority of immigration, here and elsewhere as well.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I'll back off. But what the heck does "monkeyed" mean? Unless I don't want to know.......
IIRC, its just another term for temp-banning.
-
Monkeys have their Hard Light forum accesses revoked, but not Gen FS, FS Modding, and soforth.