Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[Edi]

So what? That facet of our law is being abused, and that abuse has to stop. Tough shit.

So have legislation passed to the effect that will close that loophole. Or are you just whining about how acting according to the law doesn't allow for your preferred solution of executing illegal immigrants out of hand?

First of all, I never advocated executing them out of hand. I advocate deporting them once, which effectively forgives the crime -- the first time. On a second offense, though, their lives are forfeit. And of course I do think they should be forewarned of that.

No, you'll just execute them out of hand the second time around. How fucking magnanimous of you. How do you justify such harsh measures? Because they cause individually negligible economic damage?

Also, can you tell me what the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are for, asshole? They happen to form the basis of the rule of law in the US, and almost all provisions of the BoR apply also to people other than US citizens when under US jurisdiction. Amendments 1 through 9 do0 not make any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, except perhaps the second because of the nature of militias.

You'd have to toss out almost all of it to get your wankfest of a fantasy about killing illegal immigrants for what is at best a minor offense. But I suppose for a fucktard like you wrecking the whole foundation of your country is okay if it means you get to keep the dirty Mexicans out.

I do believe they should have an informed choice in whether they live or die. And the choice is a simple one:

1. Come here legally.
2. Don't come here.
3. Eat a bullet.

Your beliefs are immaterial unless you can actually make a decent argument to back them up, and the fucking Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

No, I didn't miss it, you just think you answered him, but I've yet to see an answer to his question about what system of morality would advocate executing people for causing rather little economic harm (on an individual basis, the aggregate is a different matter).

I took that particular question of his to be rhetorical.

As you wish. However, I'm posing you the exact same question, and it's not a rhetorical one this time around: What moral system is it that has executing people on the basis of economic harm as a moral act?

Fix the loophole and you're all set to legally deport the lot of them. Too bad the political realities of the situation even in that instance would not allow it to be done full scale like you would prefer.

And what political reality is that? The fact that our government has sucked Mexico's cock long enough for it to be expected now?

No, you fuckwit. You can't strip citizenship from people ex post facto and that means you are going to have to let a lot of illegals stay because of their children being citizens. You can prevent more of them coming that way, though. Besides, I doubt there would be quite as much support as you think among the general population for such harsh measures as you seem to prefer.

Things change, and the worst-case negative political repercussion that can come from mass deportation of Mexican nationals back to Mexico is that Mexico (finally) openly declares war, we hand it its ass and create the buffer zone already mentioned. Not a lot of worst in that worst-case.

What exactly are you smoking and why aren't you in jail for doing it? There is no way Mexico would declare war, but it could hurt you badly economically and find other ways of being a big nuisance. Suddenly, not even a pretense of law enforcement against anything that is targeted against the US (such as drug smuggling etc), aggressive enforcement of air space sovereignty, sea lanes etc, with US ships and planes targeted (such as not allowing passage) etc, and there is a shitload of other stuff they could do on the political front that could make things difficult and expensive in Latin America. You're deluded if you think Mexico has no influence there.

So go fuck yourself with an electrified barbed wire dildo, you cum-guzzling shitlicker.

Flames always have more sting when the argument you top them with actually has merit. Try to remember that for next time.

Your wall of ignorance is not my problem. It's amsuing when pathetic little cumstains like you pretend they know what they are talking about and make complete fucking asses of themselves. Go bray elsewhere.

Edi

[Mal_Reynolds]

Omigod, Mexican soldiers have done something wrong, which their government officially denies supporting? Quick, declare war! After all, no American soldier has ever done anything wrong which their government officially denies supporting.

Oh, you know what? You're absolutely right. We really should use reductionism to strip away the context.

As far as I know, you can deny supporting an isolated incursion every now and then. These aren't every now and then -- more than 200 in approximately ten years on the part of a military with modern navigational equipment is just a touch hard to call accidental, and there's no way in hell Mexican military just "accidentally" shot at our Border Patrol personnel.

But then, I suppose no one here thinks Israel should have ever exercised force to protect their civilians from Palestinian terrorists, either.

There are gangs that are known to include members who've defected from the mexican military. Since most of the shootings occur trying to smuggle marijuana into the country, these are likely to be gang affiliations, not government ones.

And the US has done the same several times. I've personally known someone who was stationed in a country near Iraq without said country's permission, which is a lot worse than the accidental "invasions" onto US soil by the Mexican army. And they are mostly thought to be accidental.

There is little doubt that the majority of these incidences are accidental.

Now, this is in the midst of talking about how there are very serious problems with our current border policies, but there haven't been 200 marked incidents of intentional intrusion, and whether those uniformed folks from Mexico are actually part of the army is suspect. You'd need further proof for a war, buddy.

It's been an ongoing problem for 10 years. I think 10 years is plenty of time for Mexico to crack down hard enough to put a stop to it -- if, that is, they ever intended to. And it's not like they don't know where the border is. It's not exactly moving around playing tricks on them. Next, I have to reiterate that pursuit of our agents and firing on them is not accidental. Last but not least, if there are people somehow stealing Mexican military gear and vehicles and then employing proper maneuver just like regular military would, you'd think Mexico would be cracking down on them pretty fiercely. They're not. So whether they're the ones doing it or just the ones allowing it makes no damn difference.

[Mal_Reynolds]

EDIT : What is the point in delaying the citizenship of the child until he is 10 years old anyway? It just creates unnecessary paperwork and will not stop people from continuing to come to the US. They'll keep coming even if they don't get child care benefits. Do you really think they come to the US with the mindset "we'll come to the US, have a child and the government will give us money and we'll be rich?" They want a better life for themselves and their family

Again, immigration is legal. They choose to break the law.

As I said, they should be given three -- and only three -- options:

Come legally, don't come, or die here.

[Aaron]

Again, immigration is legal. They choose to break the law.

As I said, they should be given three -- and only three -- options:

Come legally, don't come, or die here.

Wow, and I thought Sheps mining the border BS was bad. You make him look like a great humanitarian. I have no problem wiith shooting the coyotes but shooting the illegals who are just looking for a better life, thats pretty low. Your nothing but a vulture, and a racist scum sucking one at that. How about we drop you on the wrong side of the border and let you get shot alongside the coyotes, maybe see how it feels to be brown? But somehow I suspect you won't be on this board long enough for me to learn the results of that little experiment.

[Stark]

So you're saying illegal immigrants have no rights and can be summarily executed?

[brianeyci]

Again, immigration is legal. They choose to break the law.

As I said, they should be given three -- and only three -- options:

Come legally, don't come, or die here.

Then you believe that someone who steals CD's should die too huh?

Man that's pathetic. People have a right to education and medical treatment. Your strawman of "pay until you're bankrupt" is not a valid counter argument to that.

Brian

[Stravo]

Again, immigration is legal. They choose to break the law.

As I said, they should be given three -- and only three -- options:

Come legally, don't come, or die here.

Just let me hear this clearly: What part of the crime of illegal immigration warrants death? What component of crossing our borders without permission and coming here to work warrants the death penalty?

Let's look at crimes and their penalty structure to give us an idea of what you're advocating. Murder, sure that one is morally justified and clear since the days of Abraham. But let's make this clear - rape is NOT punishable by the death penalty so what you are now stating unequivocally is that illegal immigration is akin to murder and worse than rape.

I hope I stated your position clearly on this and if I didn't you need to make up your fucking mind what you're saying and think about things before you throw it utter bullshit like all illegal immigrants should eat a bullet. BTW does that include their kids? Children under 18? Pregnant women? Old ladies and men?

[Zero]

EDIT : What is the point in delaying the citizenship of the child until he is 10 years old anyway? It just creates unnecessary paperwork and will not stop people from continuing to come to the US. They'll keep coming even if they don't get child care benefits. Do you really think they come to the US with the mindset "we'll come to the US, have a child and the government will give us money and we'll be rich?" They want a better life for themselves and their family

Again, immigration is legal. They choose to break the law.

As I said, they should be given three -- and only three -- options:

Come legally, don't come, or die here.

You should employ the same options for th entire legal system.

Obey the law, don't live in this country, or be killed for disobeying the law.

Following your system, would shooting people for shoplifting be a decent goal? What about for TPing houses, or driving whilst a bit tipsy? Do you only advocate shooting illegal immigrants, or is it all people that do shit that's illegal?

It's been an ongoing problem for 10 years. I think 10 years is plenty of time for Mexico to crack down hard enough to put a stop to it -- if, that is, they ever intended to. And it's not like they don't know where the border is. It's not exactly moving around playing tricks on them. Next, I have to reiterate that pursuit of our agents and firing on them is not accidental. Last but not least, if there are people somehow stealing Mexican military gear and vehicles and then employing proper maneuver just like regular military would, you'd think Mexico would be cracking down on them pretty fiercely. They're not. So whether they're the ones doing it or just the ones allowing it makes no damn difference.

How long has the illegal drug trade been going on in the US? Yeah, we've sure used our concentrated efforts to put a stop to that shit.

Come on, think about how much alcohol was still around when the government enacted prohibition back in the day. Stopping the drug trade isn't exactly an easy thing to work with.

According to this article, both the US and Mexico have been working to stop drug cartels involving people who recruit both mexican military men and people working for Federal Investigation Agency in Mexico. Sounds like defectors and recruits, but it sure as fuck doesn't sound like an invasion by the Mexican military.

[Mal_Reynolds]

So have legislation passed to the effect that will close that loophole. Or are you just whining about how acting according to the law doesn't allow for your preferred solution of executing illegal immigrants out of hand?

First of all, I never advocated executing them out of hand. I advocate deporting them once, which effectively forgives the crime -- the first time. On a second offense, though, their lives are forfeit. And of course I do think they should be forewarned of that.

No, you'll just execute them out of hand the second time around.

That would sort of negate the "out of hand" concept, being the second time around.

How fucking magnanimous of you. How do you justify such harsh measures? Because they cause individually negligible economic damage?

No, because they cause collectively disastrous economic damage, and because they have no right to be here in the first place illegally.

Also, can you tell me what the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are for, asshole?

Sure can, fucknuts -- they're for Americans.

They happen to form the basis of the rule of law in the US, and almost all provisions of the BoR apply also to people other than US citizens when under US jurisdiction.

Only when those people are recognized -- why do you think the law has so far allowed indefinite Gitmo detainment? Because the Gitmo detainees aren't classified. Illegals aren't legally classified either. You comes unnanounced, you takes your chances.

Amendments 1 through 9 do0 not make any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, except perhaps the second because of the nature of militias.

They don't make any distinction because no distinction was necessary at the time they were drafted.

You'd have to toss out almost all of it to get your wankfest of a fantasy about killing illegal immigrants for what is at best a minor offense.

You're making a habit of being wrong.

But I suppose for a fucktard like you wrecking the whole foundation of your country is okay if it means you get to keep the dirty Mexicans out.

See, here's the racism I mentioned earlier -- let me make this perfectly clear: I would advocate exactly the same measures if the illegals in question were coming from Canada.

I do believe they should have an informed choice in whether they live or die. And the choice is a simple one:

1. Come here legally.
2. Don't come here.
3. Eat a bullet.

Your beliefs are immaterial unless you can actually make a decent argument to back them up, and the fucking Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

I have, it doesn't, and you jump to conclusions faster than a flea to a dog's ass.

No, I didn't miss it, you just think you answered him, but I've yet to see an answer to his question about what system of morality would advocate executing people for causing rather little economic harm (on an individual basis, the aggregate is a different matter).

I took that particular question of his to be rhetorical.

As you wish. However, I'm posing you the exact same question, and it's not a rhetorical one this time around: What moral system is it that has executing people on the basis of economic harm as a moral act?

The same morality that led Santa Ana to the Alamo.

Fix the loophole and you're all set to legally deport the lot of them. Too bad the political realities of the situation even in that instance would not allow it to be done full scale like you would prefer.

And what political reality is that? The fact that our government has sucked Mexico's cock long enough for it to be expected now?

No, you fuckwit. You can't strip citizenship from people ex post facto and that means you are going to have to let a lot of illegals stay because of their children being citizens.

Which I'm not willing to do. Therefore they're given the option to either pursue legal citizenship immediately or get the fuck out and take their spawn with them. It's their choice.

You can prevent more of them coming that way, though. Besides, I doubt there would be quite as much support as you think among the general population for such harsh measures as you seem to prefer.

Poll
Poll
Poll -- especially pertinent quote from this last one:

When it came to the status of the nation's borders, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the federal government should deploy troops on the Mexican border as a temporary measure to control illegal immigration?" A clear majority – 53 percent – agree, while 40 percent disagree.

Now you'll point out that that doesn't cement support for the measures I've suggested, and you're right. It doesn't. But it does suggest that opposition to them just might not be as knee-jerk across the board as yours has been.

Things change, and the worst-case negative political repercussion that can come from mass deportation of Mexican nationals back to Mexico is that Mexico (finally) openly declares war, we hand it its ass and create the buffer zone already mentioned. Not a lot of worst in that worst-case.

What exactly are you smoking and why aren't you in jail for doing it? There is no way Mexico would declare war, but it could hurt you badly economically and find other ways of being a big nuisance.

How, by NOT supplying us with hordes of cheap labor who devalue local economy and suck up municipal, state and federal tax dollars?

Suddenly, not even a pretense of law enforcement against anything that is targeted against the US (such as drug smuggling etc),

And since a pretense is all that's offered now, that won't change a fucking thing...

aggressive enforcement of air space sovereignty, sea lanes etc, with US ships and planes targeted (such as not allowing passage)

Yeah, because donated Vietnam-era helos are really a match for modern American gunships...

etc, and there is a shitload of other stuff they could do on the political front that could make things difficult and expensive in Latin America. You're deluded if you think Mexico has no influence there.

Right, because all those dictators and drug czars contribute sooooo much to our stability and prosperity.

So go fuck yourself with an electrified barbed wire dildo, you cum-guzzling shitlicker.

Flames always have more sting when the argument you top them with actually has merit. Try to remember that for next time.

Your wall of ignorance is not my problem. It's amsuing when pathetic little cumstains like you pretend they know what they are talking about and make complete fucking asses of themselves. Go bray elsewhere.

I suppose you congratulated yourself all over the room after that one.

[SirNitram]

Also, can you tell me what the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are for, asshole?

Sure can, fucknuts -- they're for Americans.

Would you care to try again, perhaps with the correct answer this time?

[Zero]

Mal, you can't seem to find the difference betwee "We need stronger border control policy," and "SHOOT THEM ALL!!1!!one!!"

The two aren't the same thing. And your plan to go to war would be opposed by all the folks except for ignorant fucks like yourself, and maybe an Ex of mine. You're a goddamned idiot if you think a majority of folks in the US would support your plan.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Since everyone has all asked basically the same question:

First, they're being given a choice. It's less analogous to murder than it is to suicide by cop.

Right now, the analogy is this -- a rapist is going at. The U.S. taxpayer is the vic. The U.S. government is the cop. The cop is standing there just fucking watching. I see that, and I say give the rapist one chance to desist. After that, too bad.

And as others have pointed out, deportation without the promise of immediate and permanent negative repercussions on repeat offense isn't going to work. First time deportation, second time execution and military enforcement of the border will work. Right now they're choosing a better life. Force them to choose life. Period. And that will end illegal immigration, one way or the other.

Now I'm sure you'll all want to get back to throw logic out the window and get back to your whinging and crying and emotional bullshit -- have a ball with that.

[Stark]

<snip>I see that, and I say give the rapist one chance to desist. After that, too bad.<snip>

Is this attitude due to your perception of the scale of damage done by illegal immigration, or would you advocate such policies for all crimes?

[SirNitram]

Since everyone has all asked basically the same question:

First, they're being given a choice. It's less analogous to murder than it is to suicide by cop.

Ah, the ol' 'Change my argument entirely' backpedal.

Right now, the analogy is this -- a rapist is going at. The U.S. taxpayer is the vic. The U.S. government is the cop. The cop is standing there just fucking watching. I see that, and I say give the rapist one chance to desist. After that, too bad.

Illegally entering the US does not carry the legal status of rape. False analogy. Try again.

And as others have pointed out, deportation without the promise of immediate and permanent negative repercussions on repeat offense isn't going to work. First time deportation, second time execution and military enforcement of the border will work. Right now they're choosing a better life. Force them to choose life. Period. And that will end illegal immigration, one way or the other.

Violates the laws of this country up to the Constitution, which does indeed extend to cover non-Americans.

Now I'm sure you'll all want to get back to throw logic out the window and get back to your whinging and crying and emotional bullshit -- have a ball with that.

....Says the Nationalist Bigot who thinks he can make a reliable analogy of illegal immigration to rape.

Keep trying, kid. No one buys your 'YOU'RE ALL BEING ILLOGICAL!' screed.

[Zero]

Since everyone has all asked basically the same question:

First, they're being given a choice. It's less analogous to murder than it is to suicide by cop.

Right now, the analogy is this -- a rapist is going at. The U.S. taxpayer is the vic. The U.S. government is the cop. The cop is standing there just fucking watching. I see that, and I say give the rapist one chance to desist. After that, too bad.

And as others have pointed out, deportation without the promise of immediate and permanent negative repercussions on repeat offense isn't going to work. First time deportation, second time execution and military enforcement of the border will work. Right now they're choosing a better life. Force them to choose life. Period. And that will end illegal immigration, one way or the other.

Now I'm sure you'll all want to get back to throw logic out the window and get back to your whinging and crying and emotional bullshit -- have a ball with that.

You call ethics and morality emotional bullshit? Why not go shoot your own mother, then, if she thinks she has the right to borrow cash from you? She's being a nuisance, a drain on your personal economic status, and you could ask her to leave you alone once to be nice before putting a bullet in her head.

Seriously, you're the one being a fucking idiot here. Your entire standard of ethics seems to be that if it stops illegal immigration, it's automatically good, and if it doesn't, it's automatically bad. Do you not see why attributing no value to human life might be morally bad?

[Mal_Reynolds]

<snip>I see that, and I say give the rapist one chance to desist. After that, too bad.<snip>

Is this attitude due to your perception of the scale of damage done by illegal immigration, or would you advocate such policies for all crimes?

It's based on the scale, severity of effect and longevity or the primary crime as well as incident crimes.

[Stravo]

Do you realize that your own (ridiculously false) analogy still fails? Rape is NOT punishable by death in the U.S. so how does that help your cause?

And how do you mete death out to the children that come with these immigrants? The elderly? The sick? Second time I've asked this question BTW.

[Darth Lucifer]

No, because they cause collectively disastrous economic damage, and because they have no right to be here in the first place illegally...I do believe they should have an informed choice in whether they live or die.

And the choice is a simple one:

1. Come here legally.
2. Don't come here.
3. Eat a bullet.

Your beliefs are immaterial unless you can actually make a decent (emphasis mine -Mario) argument to back them up, and the fucking Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

I have...

Liar.

...it doesn't...

Another lie.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

...and you jump to conclusions faster than a flea to a dog's ass.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[SirNitram]

It's based on the scale, severity of effect and longevity or the primary crime as well as incident crimes.

So by your argument, Bill Gates should be shot. Why do I not think you're actually going to stand by this clear and obvious outcome of your trumped up justification for being a homicidal bigot?

[Flagg]

The essense of Fuckwit Reynolds argument: THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

[Master of Ossus]

Mal, if I were you I would just stop talking. Of course, if I were you then you wouldn't be in this awkward position in which your hopelessly immoral reasoning has trapped you in a box of your own device. Welcome to the HoS.

[Mal_Reynolds]

You call ethics and morality emotional bullshit?

I call applying ethics and morality to only one side of a conflict emotional bullshit. You won't accept a method that will stop illegal immigration because it will take American citizenship away from children that should never have legally had it, but you refuse to consider the American children forced into poverty because of illegal competition in local labor markets and depressed local economies.

[SirNitram]

You call ethics and morality emotional bullshit?

I call applying ethics and morality to only one side of a conflict emotional bullshit. You won't accept a method that will stop illegal immigration because it will take American citizenship away from children that should never have legally had it, but you refuse to consider the American children forced into poverty because of illegal competition in local labor markets and depressed local economies.

Sins Of The Father stay with the Father. That is a basic legal reality of the 1st world. Furthermore, it is a basic economic reality that creating an underclass that is uneducated, without citizens rights, and soforth, will depress the economy far more and lead to sporadic rioting; see France.

In other words, you're bullshitting. Again. Enjoy the Hall, bigot.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Mal, if I were you I would just stop talking. Of course, if I were you then you wouldn't be in this awkward position in which your hopelessly immoral reasoning has trapped you in a box of your own device. Welcome to the HoS.

As Seneca said, "There is no virtue else than right reason."

[SirNitram]

Mal, if I were you I would just stop talking. Of course, if I were you then you wouldn't be in this awkward position in which your hopelessly immoral reasoning has trapped you in a box of your own device. Welcome to the HoS.

As Seneca said, "There is no virtue else than right reason."

So how's it feel declaring yourself without any virtue at all? Do you think you look clever with trite quotes to pretend you have logic on your side?