Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[Mal_Reynolds]

There are about 5 million illegal immigrants in the US today. Any system of deportation, or even attempts at regulation would cost a LOT of money.

I always heard 11 million.
I think it would be more cost effective, and more beneficial to everyone to do what I described with a limited amnesty. A blanket amnesty sends a bad message, and trying to deport even 5 million people would just result in most of the coming right back across the border.

Which is why you tag them the first time and drop them when they come back. Eventually they figure it out and stop coming back.

[Mal_Reynolds]

See above and then take your head out of your ass just long enough to suck my cock, you ignorant little shit. The Mexican military assists illegals, some of them "coyotes" and some of them drug smugglers, in breaching the border. According to La Voz de Aztlan, Vicente Fox talked about establishing a cabinet in his government to assist illegals in occupying the U.S. Illegals retain full Mexican citizenship.

You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence for this. Until you can actually show that this is happening, go fuck yourself.

They violate our border and illegally occupy land and jobs here with their government's full blessing and active assistance. That makes Mexico a hostile foreign power. Take your bleeding-heart emotionalist bullshit and go fuck off with it.

What bleeding-heart emotional bullshit? All I've said is that you can't classify these actions as that of a hostile foreign power, because illegal immigration isn't a fucking invasion. They haven't come into the US and claimed the land for Mexico or anything. These are citizens of mexico coming here looking for jobs, not soldiers taking land for their home country. Yes, they're here illegally, and no, I don't support that. I'm just not so fucking stupid so as to think going to war with Mexico over illegal actions of their citizens is a good idea, despite all political and economic ramifications.

So you'd prefer to just ignore the military incursions by Mexican forces that support illegal immigration, and the fact that their President is in full support of their illegal actions -- which is what makes it an invasion, an act of war, by any definition other than the emotional kneejerk bullshit you're espousing, of course.

And yeah, let's just roll over and take it up the ass, why don't we. Sure, let's fuck American citizens in favor of foreign nationals who have no legal right to even be here. Why not just "care" ourselves into economic and cultural suicide. :rolleyes:

[brianeyci]

Why not just "care" ourselves into economic and cultural suicide.

So you're a racist scumbag that believes in the purity of the American culture, mom, pop and apple pie and baseball games and beer huh? I bet you think immigration dilutes the gene pool of the master race too. We've got to protect the whiteness of the country, protect I say.

You fucking moron.

Not to mention that your strawman of pay for everything until in economic suicide is pretty stupid since that's not what the humanist pro-immigration side is saying. But hey, don't let that stop you from framing the debate in a you versus them context.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Taking high school kids (a great metric of intelligence I'm sure) who raise a Mexican flag and don't know shit and condemning all illegal immigrants is stupid when there's the other side.

You mean this other side?

Your attention span can't even last until the end of a sentence wow. Taking high school kids who raise a Mexican flag and don't know shit and condemning all illegal immigrants is stupid when there's the other side obviously refers to the other side being the side of immigrants holding American and flags of their native country. And I expect you to go grammar nazi on me and say that is not a sentence, when anybody could have seen the intent of that sentence with their eyes closed. Anybody but someone who swallows whole the us versus them argument.

Hey, maybe you'll go all sorts of other nazi too. Why not gas chamber the ones who are here more than once illegally? It would be quick, easy disposal and wouldn't cost as much as educating their children or giving them medical treatment .

Brian

[Plekhanov]

I always heard 11 million.
I think it would be more cost effective, and more beneficial to everyone to do what I described with a limited amnesty. A blanket amnesty sends a bad message, and trying to deport even 5 million people would just result in most of the coming right back across the border.

Which is why you tag them the first time and drop them when they come back. Eventually they figure it out and stop coming back.

What would that cost to implement?

Just checking, you do realise that when Mal says "and drop them when they come back." he actually means “and kill them when they come back."?

[Duckie]

I've seen Mal quote La Voz de Aztlan several times.

Now, based on what I have heard, this source is cut from the same cloth as The Secret Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion.

So Mal, if Vincente Fox is in on the Mexican conspiracy to swamp the US in brown people, is it because the Jews control the media that this hasn't gotten more coverage?

Or am I incorrect in this comparision?

[Surlethe]

I've seen the claim that the Mexican military has violated US sovereignty and killed US border patrol agents bandied about several times in this thread, but no source to back it up.

I just don't think it's at all feasable to go around and deport all illegal aliens.

It's not feasible at all. As I pointed out on the second page of the thread, illegal immigrants make up about 5% of the American labor force; deport all illegal aliens, and you remove five percent of the economy's work force.

[Zero]

So you'd prefer to just ignore the military incursions by Mexican forces that support illegal immigration, and the fact that their President is in full support of their illegal actions -- which is what makes it an invasion, an act of war, by any definition other than the emotional kneejerk bullshit you're espousing, of course.

And yeah, let's just roll over and take it up the ass, why don't we. Sure, let's fuck American citizens in favor of foreign nationals who have no legal right to even be here. Why not just "care" ourselves into economic and cultural suicide. :rolleyes:

I didn't say to ignore incursions by Mexican forces, I told you to actually support your claim that they existed at all. Don't strawman me, jackass. And it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say. It would be an act of war if their president came on board and said "INVADE THE UNITED STATES!!" If the president is in favor of his citizens having better lives and better jobs, that doesn't mean it's an invasion. Besides, if you were a Mexican, and had the same bullshit nationalistic attitude, you'd be in support of illegal immigration to the states, since US citizens don't matter.

And I never said a damned thing about giving a fuck about mexican illegals. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. You're not even good at it. I'm talking to you about the stupidity and impracticality of your position, which is to go to war with mexico over civilian actions.

[Mal_Reynolds]

So you'd prefer to just ignore the military incursions by Mexican forces that support illegal immigration, and the fact that their President is in full support of their illegal actions -- which is what makes it an invasion, an act of war, by any definition other than the emotional kneejerk bullshit you're espousing, of course.

And yeah, let's just roll over and take it up the ass, why don't we. Sure, let's fuck American citizens in favor of foreign nationals who have no legal right to even be here. Why not just "care" ourselves into economic and cultural suicide. :rolleyes:

I didn't say to ignore incursions by Mexican forces, I told you to actually support your claim that they existed at all.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mexic ... tartPage=1

First page. One Google search. Not real hard to do.

And it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
An intrusion or encroachment.

It would be an act of war if their president came on board and said "INVADE THE UNITED STATES!!"

Riiiiiight. So in your view, a burglary isn't a burglary, then, unless the burglars announce their intensions beforehand. Right?

If the president is in favor of his citizens having better lives and better jobs, that doesn't mean it's an invasion.

If he's in favor of them intruding into this country to do that, then yes, he is.

Besides, if you were a Mexican, and had the same bullshit nationalistic attitude, you'd be in support of illegal immigration to the states, since US citizens don't matter.

Which, as the quotes previously provided indicate, is exactly the case. Knock off this fucking double standard, or show me it isn't a double standard you're proposing. You're defending their nationalism, as it is, and saying mine is wrong. Fuck you.

And I never said a damned thing about giving a fuck about mexican illegals. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. You're not even good at it. I'm talking to you about the stupidity and impracticality of your position, which is to go to war with mexico over civilian actions.

See above, asshole -- their supporting the illegal invasion of their civilians with their military. That is an act of war.

[Zero]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mexic ... tartPage=1

First page. One Google search. Not real hard to do.

It was your argument, and your claimed fact; it was up to you to verify it's honesty, not me. Besides, in the very first link on that page, it also explains that US troops have accidentally gone into Mexico as well; these "intrusions" were in places where the border wasn't heavily marked.

The department of homeland security says there have been 231 documented incursions by the Mexican military and law enforcement officers since 1996. It's also believed that the vast majority of these are accidental.

The second link talks about uniformed soldiers defending the drug trade, so I can't help but think that these soldiers aren't being aided by the federal government in Mexico.

Riiiiiight. So in your view, a burglary isn't a burglary, then, unless the burglars announce their intensions beforehand. Right?

That's not an analogous situation. I'm saying that if I went to London and kill 47 people, this isn't an act of war by the US government, since I'm unaffiliated with them. You're declaring actions of Mexican civilians to be an invasion by Mexico.

Besides, if you were a Mexican, and had the same bullshit nationalistic attitude, you'd be in support of illegal immigration to the states, since US citizens don't matter.

Which, as the quotes previously provided indicate, is exactly the case. Knock off this fucking double standard, or show me it isn't a double standard you're proposing. You're defending their nationalism, as it is, and saying mine is wrong. Fuck you.

I never siad their nationalism was right, I only said that your proposed war with Mexico is bullshit. I'm trying to show you that you're employing a double standard by saying yours is right, and theirs is wrong. My position is that you're both wrong.

See above, asshole -- their supporting the illegal invasion of their civilians with their military. That is an act of war.

When the Mexican military sends soldiers into the US and captures Texas, you can bitch about an invasion. As is, it's just heavy illegal immigration, which I'm against. It isn't an act of war, and starting a war would have so many negative consequences that won't be overcome by the positive outcomes you claim such a war would have.

[Zero]

Let me get something straight, so that there's no more confusion about my viewpoint. I don't think in any way that illegal immigration is a good thing. I do think we could use some reform for border patrol, because there's a lot of damned people coming over the boarder illegally. However, it's not an invasion, and starting a war would be a damned stupid thing to do.

[Mal_Reynolds]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mexic ... tartPage=1

First page. One Google search. Not real hard to do.

It was your argument, and your claimed fact; it was up to you to verify it's honesty, not me. Besides, in the very first link on that page, it also explains that US troops have accidentally gone into Mexico as well; these "intrusions" were in places where the border wasn't heavily marked.

Then I'll raise the same point T. J. Bonner (Border Patrol veteran -- but you knew that, right? You did read this far?) is that they have GPS just as our troops do -- and where does it say anywhere in that article that U.S. troops have violated the border?

The department of homeland security says there have been 231 documented incursions by the Mexican military and law enforcement officers since 1996. It's also believed that the vast majority of these are accidental.

No, it's stated by Mexico that the majority of those are accidental. It's not believed by our own Border Patrol, nor by hardly anyone else, as far as I can see.

The second link talks about uniformed soldiers defending the drug trade, so I can't help but think that these soldiers aren't being aided by the federal government in Mexico.

How does the first part of that lead to the "so I can't help but think" portion? "Soldiers in Mexican military uniform, with Mexican military equipment and vehicles, therefore not Mexican military" seems like a damn stretch to me.

Riiiiiight. So in your view, a burglary isn't a burglary, then, unless the burglars announce their intensions beforehand. Right?

That's not an analogous situation. I'm saying that if I went to London and kill 47 people, this isn't an act of war by the US government, since I'm unaffiliated with them.

No, that's not an analogous situation. An analogous situation would be you and 10 million of your friends going over there, and your government providing military escort to get you there, and that is an act of war.

You're declaring actions of Mexican civilians to be an invasion by Mexico.

Yes, because those actions are supported by the Mexican government and aided by the Mexican military.

Besides, if you were a Mexican, and had the same bullshit nationalistic attitude, you'd be in support of illegal immigration to the states, since US citizens don't matter.

Which, as the quotes previously provided indicate, is exactly the case. Knock off this fucking double standard, or show me it isn't a double standard you're proposing. You're defending their nationalism, as it is, and saying mine is wrong. Fuck you.

I never siad their nationalism was right, I only said that your proposed war with Mexico is bullshit. I'm trying to show you that you're employing a double standard by saying yours is right, and theirs is wrong. My position is that you're both wrong.

And I still say you're the one with a double-standard. Whether declared or not, whether through open gunplay (which has occurred) or merely through colonization (mass illegal occupation and "anchor babies") Mexico is waging a war on the southwestern U.S. and there's nothing immoral about the U.S. returning war for war. Maybe your big objection is that I'm saying we don't fight their war their way. Wah.

See above, asshole -- their supporting the illegal invasion of their civilians with their military. That is an act of war.

When the Mexican military sends soldiers into the US and captures Texas, you can bitch about an invasion.

The Mexican military has sent soldiers into the U.S. and engaged deadly force against our Border Patrol. And why the fuck should we wait around for Mexico to capture Texas through illegal colonization before we respond? What, we're supposed to lose a war before you think we're justified in engaging it?

As is, it's just heavy illegal immigration, which I'm against. It isn't an act of war, and starting a war would have so many negative consequences that won't be overcome by the positive outcomes you claim such a war would have.

What negative consequences? Businesses will finally be forced to pay legal incomes into the economy again? Their bottom line takes a hit? Or maybe you mean the world would think we're horrible horrible monsters for defending the sovereignty of our own country? Tough shit.

Again it comes down to this -- you're saying "fuck you!" to Americans in favor of foreign criminals.

[Andrew J.]

What negative consequences? Businesses will finally be forced to pay legal incomes into the economy again? Their bottom line takes a hit? Or maybe you mean the world would think we're horrible horrible monsters for defending the sovereignty of our own country? Tough shit.

Try "dead American soldiers," asshole.

[Surlethe]

And it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
An intrusion or encroachment.

If you're using this definition to justify responding with military force against the state of Mexico, we ought to also respond with military force against evangelical Christians, since evangelical Christianity is invading American culture.

[Mal_Reynolds]

What negative consequences? Businesses will finally be forced to pay legal incomes into the economy again? Their bottom line takes a hit? Or maybe you mean the world would think we're horrible horrible monsters for defending the sovereignty of our own country? Tough shit.

Try "dead American soldiers," asshole.

Which we've already got, for a far less justifiable cause. The fact is that we're already waging a war that far less beneficial to defending America's interests. Our troops should be on our southern border defending American lives and livelihoods instead of in the middle east.

[Mal_Reynolds]

And it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
An intrusion or encroachment.

If you're using this definition to justify responding with military force against the state of Mexico, we ought to also respond with military force against evangelical Christians, since evangelical Christianity is invading American culture.

Congratulations, you're a fucking retard. Evangelical Christians are idiots, but they're domestic idiots. An invasion comes in form of foreign idiots.

[Surlethe]

Congratulations, you're a fucking retard. Evangelical Christians are idiots, but they're domestic idiots. An invasion comes in form of foreign idiots.

Hey, fuckwit; in case you're illiterate, I was, albeit obliquely, pointing you're equivocating on "invasion" to use the colloquial definition -- which is the one you bolded -- to justify a military response, which assumes the definition you didn't bold. It's not my fucking problem if you're too damned stupid to recognize that you're engaging in an elementary logical fallacy to propagate your bullshit.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Congratulations, you're a fucking retard. Evangelical Christians are idiots, but they're domestic idiots. An invasion comes in form of foreign idiots.

Hey, fuckwit; in case you're illiterate, I was, albeit obliquely, pointing you're equivocating on "invasion" to use the colloquial definition -- which is the one you bolded -- to justify a military response, which assumes the definition you didn't bold. It's not my fucking problem if you're too damned stupid to recognize that you're engaging in an elementary logical fallacy to propagate your bullshit.

Where's the fallacy, nutpuddle? And what's colloquial about "An intrusion or encroachment. "? That's not colloquial, and there's no logical fallacy there because Mexico has used their military assets to support the intrusions, which causes their activity to come into the realm of the first definition.

Don't talk to me about mediocre reading comprehension or logical fallacies either, until you actually have something that backs you up on either charge, which you presently fucking don't.

[Surlethe]

Where's the fallacy, nutpuddle?

Equivocation. Haven't you heard of it? It's where your argument hinges on the change in meaning of a word, which is precisely what you've done.

And what's colloquial about "An intrusion or encroachment. "?

If you're too stupid to realize that that's the colloquial definition of "invasion" -- e.g., "invasion of cockroaches"; "invasion of cockmunches"; "invasion of trollshits" -- then you have no business on an English-speaking forum, asshole.

That's not colloquial, and there's no logical fallacy there because Mexico has used their military assets to support the intrusions, which causes their activity to come into the realm of the first definition.

Oh, then in that case you're a lying fucknut for specifically outlining the second definition in response to the statement "it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say." Either way, you lose. However, even by the first definition, Mexican intrusions are not an invasion since they are not entering to conquer US territory.

Don't talk to me about mediocre reading comprehension or logical fallacies either, until you actually have something that backs you up on either charge, which you presently fucking don't.

I'm not the one who's trying to pass off an invasion of civilians as an excuse to go to war, and I'm not the one who's trying to equivocate an argument, dipshit.

[brianeyci]

Of course illegal immigration is an invasion. Haven't you seen the Mexican Army capturing United States territory? You've also heard of the Asian Invasion too, that's an invasion and it even rhymes. Are you a liberal bleeding heart putting sand niggers first before real Americans? And since it's an invasion the US would be perfectly justified firing artillery at the invaders. See? Invaders means using artillery is alright, and using artillery is alright beause of invasion. It's us against them, you're with us or you're with the terrorists.

Brian

[Mal_Reynolds]

Where's the fallacy, nutpuddle?

Equivocation. Haven't you heard of it? It's where your argument hinges on the change in meaning of a word, which is precisely what you've done.

Nope, sorry, bud. I posted from the damn dictionary the definitions of the word. The civilian action alone satisfies Definition 3, and Mexican military support of the civilian action satisfies Definition 1.

And what's colloquial about "An intrusion or encroachment. "?

If you're too stupid to realize that that's the colloquial definition of "invasion" -- e.g., "invasion of cockroaches"; "invasion of cockmunches"; "invasion of trollshits" -- then you have no business on an English-speaking forum, asshole.

If it were a colloquialism, I do believe it would be listed as such. Does it? No. It's literal. Too bad.

That's not colloquial, and there's no logical fallacy there because Mexico has used their military assets to support the intrusions, which causes their activity to come into the realm of the first definition.

Oh, then in that case you're a lying fucknut for specifically outlining the second definition in response to the statement "it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say." Either way, you lose. However, even by the first definition, Mexican intrusions are not an invasion since they are not entering to conquer US territory.

No, they're entering in support of civilians who are conquering U.S. territory, which is what they do through illegal occupation.

Don't talk to me about mediocre reading comprehension or logical fallacies either, until you actually have something that backs you up on either charge, which you presently fucking don't.

I'm not the one who's trying to pass off an invasion of civilians as an excuse to go to war, and I'm not the one who's trying to equivocate an argument, dipshit.

No, you're the one who's calling illegal foreign occupation, which is being supported by military escort and occasional military engagement against our Border Patrol, anything -- anything you can think of that will make it sound innocent and harmless, when it's not.

[mr friendly guy]

No, but they can prevent getting a subscription to the receiving end of more wrongs. You don't expect to fly tautologies in here, do you?

Why don't you quote the whole thing with context? The logic was because the Mexican Army attacked illegal immigrants, US should follow suit. Skimmer didn't mention anything about ending the attacks with an attack. Killing non-violent people who are seeking a better life is immoral.

You fucking moron, learn to read. The Mexican Army isn't attacking illegals, they're helping illegals breach the border and attacking U.S. Border Patrol officers.

And the post in which Brian was referring to

On Mexico’s southern boarder, the Mexican Army shoots to kill anyone who attempts to cross illegally! Why can they fucking do it but the US can't?

Hey didn't Brian mention he was replying to Sea Skimmer's post about shooting illegals? You know, for someone who accuses others of not reading properly Mal seem have difficulty doing it himself.

But wait, it gets better.

You fucking moron, learn to read. The Mexican Army isn't attacking illegals, they're helping illegals breach the border and attacking U.S. Border Patrol officers.

Why don't you learn to read retard. You took my "two wrongs don't make a right" out of context.

It wasn't in any fucking context, because you applied it to something you obviously didn't fucking read carefully. In any case, it's still a tautology, and you can still catheterize yourself with it and piss bleach, bitch.

When Brian points out that his "two wrongs don't make a right" statement was in response to SS post about Mexicans shooting illegals so should the US do it as well, and NOT in response to the Mexican army helping illegals, ergo its taken out of context, what's Mal's response. Why there wasn't any context to begin with. Why obviously using that statement in response to a particular point SS made isn't counted as context. Now why can I never think of such arguments to use? Oh wait, maybe because its retarded.

But strawmanning and intellectual dishonesty doesn't stop there.

On Mexico’s southern boarder, the Mexican Army shoots to kill anyone who attempts to cross illegally! Why can they fucking do it but the US can't?

I expect an apology dumbass (from Mal).

Well you can sit there and expect until gold falls out of your asshole, asshole. The fact is that the double-standard Skimmer points out, while valid, has nothing to do with Mexican military and paramilitary use of deadly force against our BPOs.

Brian points out his "two wrongs don't make a right" was only in response to SS post about shooting illegals and backs it up with a quote. Ergo Mal quoted out of context. Whats Mal's response. Why take it out of context some more and pretend that Brian was really discussing Mexican military using deadly force against US Border Patrol Officers.

In short Brain was talking about it being immoral to shoot someone just for illegal immigration because the crime does not merit such punishment, and in a fit of intellectual honesty Mal turns it around and pretends Brian was referring to the shooting of US BPOs, a crime which does warrant deadly force. Oh the old "switcheroo" is alive and well.

Now it could just be a misunderstanding. After all, SS did also mention that Mexican authorities were shooting at US BPOs which Brian also replied to. However it becomes apparent Mal is quite happy to debate Brian on shooting illegals rendering the point on Mexico shooting BPOs a separate argument.

In response to Brians claim that "because the Mexican military is doing it (shooting illegals), therefore US authorities should follow suit" is illogical.

Can you explain how it's false logic? It sounds to me like you're just imposing a double-standard, and nothing else.

Maybe its just me but doing something just because someone else is doing it is illogical? One has to weigh up the costs/benefits/morality of what the other person is doing before deciding to follow suit. Namely shooting illegals is a vastly disproportionate punishment for their crime and hence is immoral. But hey because Mexican soldiers are engaged in immoral activities, the US should do the same right? Which strangely enough is what Brian said, but it flew over Mal's head.

I learned long ago not to make verbose posts and two wrongs don't make a right is a nice short retort to somebody who says "because A does this B can do that".

And why can't they? Why should our border security be any weaker than any other country's, and I especially want you to tell me how you can justify your defense of a country that strictly enforces its own borders while simultaneously encouraging and actively assisting its citizens in the violation of ours.

The reason "why can't they" just do the same thing as the Mexican military is because what the Mexican military is doing is immoral. Which is what Brian's whole fucking point was. No doubt if Mal sees this he will ask me to explain why is it immoral and conveniently not read the part where I explained it above, I mean he has only resorted to the WoI tactic against Brian like several times already.

Moreover, for someone likes to cry false dilemna fallacy, isn't it ironic how he himself used one with his border security to be weaker than any other country's. According to him one must either shoot illegal immigrants to have weaker border patrols. Obviously concepts like deportation, working visa's never occurred to him. I mean they have only been mentioned in previous threads about what to do about illegal immigration.

Does Mal manage to redeem himself? Fortunately it just gets a whole lot funnier.

Can you explain how it's false logic? It sounds to me like you're just imposing a double-standard, and nothing else.

So you're one of those eye for an eye dumbasses huh.

No, I'm one of those, "You break the law, you get punished." types, and furthermore one of those, "You send soldiers across our border and shoot at our border patrol agents, we send gunships over yours and bomb the pants-pissing fuck out of you until you learn better." types.

Maybe the concept that punishment should not be disproportionate to the crime is something Mal never grasp. Or maybe he just never got around to explaning how illegal immigration is such a horrible crime that it warrants being executed for (whats the betting he will as per his MO strawman this statement to mean either we support his tough measures or we must be supporting illegal immigration). Or maybe its just much easier to state his premise like a conclusion. I mean who needs pesky justification and all that stuff anyway.

First of all the Mexicans shooting illegal immigrants on their Southern border doesn't mean the US should shoot Mexican citizens who have nothing to do with their government's policy. Innocent people.

This is the part you just will not seem to understand. There is a legal method these people can undertake to immigrate here. They choose to come illegally. They are not innocent once they've made that choice.

Lets see. Using the phrase "innocent people" after a sentence in regards to Mexican citizens having nothing to do with their government's policy. What could Brian be referring to when he said "innocent".

Is it a) they are innocent of being complicit in the Mexican government's policy or b) they are innocent of everything else as well?

In Mal's whacko land of selective reading and interpretation, its b). By that logic if discussing a case of someone who exonerated by the courts for murder, we wouldn't be able to call him innocent if he has a parking fine. After all he did break a law, just not in the context of discussion. But strawmanning is all in a day's work for Mal isn't it.

So it's not exactly eye for an eye, what you're proposing is like punishing a murderer's family member for his murder.

No, it's not like eye for an eye -- it's more like, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." since you're in love with trite little figures of speech. And you have yet to answer this head-on, by the way -- why should America not enforce its borders as stringently as every other country on the planet?

To apply the "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" argument to shooting illegals, we have to start with the premise that its not immoral to shoot someone for illegal immigration. Oh wait.

Maybe you believe in Gitmo too. Using your logic if your neighbour shoots somebody else you are justified in shooting the neighbour's sister who had nothing to do with the murder.

No, using my logic, if your neighbor breaks into your house and begins looting and threatening the safety of your family, you are fully within your right to repel that invader with deadly force.

Lets summarise

Mal : the US should shoot Mexican illegals because the Mexican government does the same thing.

Brian : the Mexican illegals are separate from the Mexican government and don't have anything to do with the policy. Therefore its stupid to shoot the illegals for something they didn't do.

Mal (applying the WoI tactic) : If a neighbour breaks in and starts threatening his family, he is allowed to use deadly force.

How this applies to shooting illegal immigrants considering that the neighbour breaking in (illegal immigrants) and the neighbour threatening (Mexican military which is shooting US BPO's) are separate entities is known only to Mal's perverted logic. Which funnily enough is what Brian said.

But I know you want more. So Mal continues to deliver his version of strawman fallacies and plain stupidity, served up on a platter.

How is this not an us vs. them issue? It certainly is from their perspective, or have you missed their president's, their citizens', and the recent protesters' attitude on the issue?

Us versus them is the mating call of republitards. You're with us or you're with the terrorists, great stuff there.

That's not "us vs. them" -- that's a false dilemma you're describing; this isn't. Don't ever talk to me about logic again until you have at least a rudimentary grasp of it.

The irony of Mal accusing someone of a false dilemna when he himself utilised one earlier and continues to utilise the same one.

Now I eagerly await Mal explanation of why "us vs them" is a false dilemna when applied to terrorists - who have an us (Islamofundies) vs them (Western countries) but strangely isn't when applied to illegal immigrants (some of which may or may not have an us vs them attitude themselves).

By the way Mexicans are people and individual Mexicans should not be shot just because of their government's problems.

No, they should be shot if they violate our border illegally after being deported once.

But hey, didn't Mal previously say US authorities should shoot Mexican illegal immigrants because the Mexican authorities do the same thing.

Sure it doesn't, but my point wasn't countering the Mexican army attacking US Border patrol. It's there for anybody to see--SS saying because the Mexican Army shoots illegals in the South, the US should be justified doing the same which is obviously false logic.

Can you explain how it's false logic? It sounds to me like you're just imposing a double-standard, and nothing else.

Ergo Mal thinks the US is justified in shooting illegals because Mexico does it as well. And again in the context of shooting illegals Mal also says

And why can't they? Why should our border security be any weaker than any other country's, and I especially want you to tell me how you can justify your defense of a country that strictly enforces its own borders while simultaneously encouraging and actively assisting its citizens in the violation of ours.

Apparently if the US doesn't shoot illegals its border security is "weaker than any other country's" re : Mexico.

I see Mal has also mastered the tactic to moving goalposts. What will he regale us with next?

NONE of them deserve it, and there's no need to deny them benefits if coming here illegally means a death sentence.

You mean murdering mostly unarmed non-violent people seeking a better life.

They're free to seek a better life here legally. If they choose not to, woe be it on them.

Translation : I can't explain why illegal immigration deserves to be shot at, but hey lets just say "woe be it on them". Yeah, people would buy that.

These. Are. NOT. Immigrants.

Hence... not... immigrants. Invaders.

Behold, the semantic whore.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.

3. An intrusion or encroachment.

Of course when we talk about one country invading another we usually use definition one. When we talking about say a burglar breaking and entering, we use definition three. By that token the "invasion" in home invasion isn't any where near the same as Iraq invading Kuwait.

But I see that using the wrong definition of the word to create sensationalism is all part and parcel of the semantics whore.

What will Mal do next. Which fallacy and dishonest debating tactics will he now use. Stay tuned to this thread.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Well, dammit, Brian; I hadn't looked at it in that light! I mean, how could I ever miss the fact that we need to counter-invade China and Korea and Japan as well as Mexico? Hey! I just had a great idea! Why don't we simply carpet-bomb Mexico City! It would get rid of those damned Mexican government officials who are instigating the invasion of civilians, and then we could live happily ever after without those stinky hispanics stealing jobs from good hard-working Americans! To hell with Chinamexican sand niggers! Ten of them are worth one American life!

Let me see if we can clarify one little point here.

1. Legal

2. Illegal.

Now. Do you -- or do you not -- understand the very fucking basic difference between the two concepts expressed by those words?

[Keevan_Colton]

Let me see if we can clarify one little point here.

1. Legal

2. Illegal.

Now. Do you -- or do you not -- understand the very fucking basic difference between the two concepts expressed by those words?

Moral

Immoral

Now. Do you -- or do you not -- understand the very fucking basic difference between the two concepts expressed by those words?

[Mal_Reynolds]

Let me see if we can clarify one little point here.

1. Legal

2. Illegal.

Now. Do you -- or do you not -- understand the very fucking basic difference between the two concepts expressed by those words?

Moral

Immoral

Now. Do you -- or do you not -- understand the very fucking basic difference between the two concepts expressed by those words?

In fact, I do. And it is neither legal nor moral to place illegal aliens above the law. It is both legal and moral for a country to defend its interests over the interests of non-citizens who illegally occupy its territory and damage the livelihoods of the people that government is sworn to represent.