Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[Keevan_Colton]

So, out of morbid curiosity, what moral system is it that has executing people on the basis of economic harm as a moral act?

[mr friendly guy]

So, out of morbid curiosity, what moral system is it that has executing people on the basis of economic harm as a moral act?

Obviously the Tharkun moral system. Where have you been?

[brianeyci]

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!

You don't even have to invade, it's not worth the time.

They can be totally destroyed; will be totally destroyed; in the event of an exchange. A Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise) produced the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So his hosts got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks - and got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal.

So you see, it would be glorious. A lot of dead innocent people, but don't let that get in the way of protecting America from the invasion of illegal immigrants!

Brian

[Mal_Reynolds]

Just wondering for those who are more astute in the subject matter, which is cheaper? The immigration status quo or enforcing boader control and deporting illegal aliens?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform has a page full of info on the subject.

Of course they're against illegal immigration so take it as you will, but if they're correct that it costs California alone $10 billion per year, then border enforcement is cheaper.

The fact that they're against illegal immigration alone has no bearing on the validity of their findings. Yes, it could have influenced the outcome of their research, but it's equally true that the outcome of their research could have led them to take their anti-illegal stance.

[Zero]

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?

5th paragraph down.

Mr. Zamora added that although incursions by the Mexican military do occur, they usually have taken place in areas of the border "not marked by monuments or signs." He said U.S. military units also have crossed mistakenly into Mexico.

Dumbass.

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.

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

He's a republican too, just not an ignorant dipshit like yourself.

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.

Several former Mexican soldiers trained in the U.S. as anti-drug commandos are now part of a well-armed gang known as the "Zetas," which has been linked to hundreds of killings and kidnappings on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border in southeastern Texas.
Many of the gang members have been identified as ex-members of an elite, anti-drug paratroop and intelligence battalion called the Special Air Mobile Force Group, who deserted in 1991.

Gang affiliations are much more likely.

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.

No, it's an act of war if uniformed soldiers are sent there with the intention of invading. Get your shit straight. Besides, you haven't really given enough info to really claim that the Mexican government is actually helping people leave.

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

Or, more likely, supported by gang members with uniforms trying to smuggle drugs into the US.

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.

Yes, Mexico is colonizing the US.

A lot of the illegals go home after making some decent bank. I met at least five of them when I was in Mexico over spring break.

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.

Death of US soldiers isn't a negative consequence. No, not at all.

Besides, do you know how much of our economy is based on foreign investments? Pissing off the entire world MIGHT just be a bad thing. Much worse than any possible benefit you could claim.

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

No, I'm saying fuck you to reactionary fucktards like yourself. I don't favor these foreign 'criminals' at all, I just think you're an idiot. We need a stronger border control policty, not war. You're the moron that advocates killing people who try to cross the border again, when in some states, the death penalty isn't even given at all. Not only this, but you advocate going to war over the actions of civilians. So FUCK YOU. Besides, you're the one who wants to send America's economy down the shitter by destroying foreign relations, which would cripple the economy. Get your shit straight, fucktard.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I already posted that link earlier and it's bullshit because 4.5 billion out of the ten billion figure is education of illegal immigrant's children, who are citizens of the United States and not illegal immigrants themselves.

That 4.5 billion doesn't make the $10 billion cost disappear -- regardless of whether our government stupidly grants citizenship to the children of illegals, illegal immigration is still what brings those children here, and so the cost of educating their spawn is still resultant from illegal immigration.

And as I said, allowing "anchor babies" is something else that needs to disappear.

[Mal_Reynolds]

The only reason they're citizens is because of the 14th amendment.
If their illegal parents hadn't had their kids on this side of the Rio Grande, then Cali wouldn't be spending that $4.5 billion, would they?
The intention of the 14th was to insure that the recently freed slaves would be citizens, not to make citizens of the children of illegal aliens.

So according to you, should I not be a citizen because of shit my great-great-great-great-great grandfather did?

What the fuck does your great-great-great-great grandfather have to do with modern illegal Mexican occupation of the U.S.?

What of mexicens acquired when the US took a shitload of land? Should they be denied citizenship and sent "home"?

Considering that that specific issue was resolved in the late 19th century, nothing need be done about that particular group because it's already been done.

[Mal_Reynolds]

And in reference to the phrase, "took a shitload of land" -- first, we conquered it in open warfare, fair and square. Then we proceeded to buy what we'd just conquered. They fought honorably. They lost. Then they got paid. They have no cause to bitch about it. It does appear, though, that they're asking for a rematch, only they haven't got the balls to come right out and say so.

[Zero]

The only reason they're citizens is because of the 14th amendment.
If their illegal parents hadn't had their kids on this side of the Rio Grande, then Cali wouldn't be spending that $4.5 billion, would they?
The intention of the 14th was to insure that the recently freed slaves would be citizens, not to make citizens of the children of illegal aliens.

So according to you, should I not be a citizen because of shit my great-great-great-great-great grandfather did?

What the fuck does your great-great-great-great grandfather have to do with modern illegal Mexican occupation of the U.S.?

He siad that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be granted citizenship. I'm simply wondering how far back down the family tree such a claim goes. I didn't say that I thought he was wrong, I'm just trying to figure out if we're only talking one generation here, or several.

What of mexicens acquired when the US took a shitload of land? Should they be denied citizenship and sent "home"?

Considering that that specific issue was resolved in the late 19th century, nothing need be done about that particular group because it's already been done.

That's the first thing I've seen you say that makes a bit of sense. Congratulations, you're no longer listed as a poor April Fool's joke in my mind.

All Glocksman is suggesting is handling citizenship the way almost all other countries do: on an application basis. You enter the US legally, you apply for citizenship, you are accepted or not. What's the problem with that?

None, as far as I'm concerned. I was just curious about his position.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Addendum:
Even if the 14th were changed, I do not support depriving those who are currently citizens by birth of their citizenship.
Any changes should only affect those born after the change is ratified.

I don't agree -- there are too many illegal aliens here already, and it would be impossible to deport them without sending their children, as well. However, I will amend my position to this -- give each and every illegal parent of anchor babies a choice -- start the process of legal naturalization immediately and complete it successfully and on schedule, or get chipped and shipped.

[Glocksman]

Does the term Ex Post Facto mean anything to you?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/url]

You can't just retroactively strip someone of their citizenship.

[Edi]

Does the term Ex Post Facto mean anything to you?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/url]

You can't just retroactively strip someone of their citizenship.

Don't bother, Glocksman. The flaming fuckwit shit for brains isn't going to let something as trivial as the basic founding principles of the US deter him from his xenophobic jihad. The asshat hasn't even responded to Keevan's question or to almost any other demands for evidence. I don't think he is going to last long here.

Edi

[Mal_Reynolds]

Does the term Ex Post Facto mean anything to you?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/url]

You can't just retroactively strip someone of their citizenship.

If their citizenship is the result of a crime anyway, why not? Their citizenship, in effect, is stolen -- stolen property is seized all the time, even when it isn't being seized from the person who actually committed the theft.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Besides, here's an unsavory thought for you, Glocksman -- the U.S. should have recused itself as a participant in the Nuremburg Tribunal if we were really serious about the Ex Post Facto clause, because the weight of the charges against Nazi Germany at said tribunal were ex post facto.

[Edi]

Does the term Ex Post Facto mean anything to you?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/url]

You can't just retroactively strip someone of their citizenship.

If their citizenship is the result of a crime anyway, why not? Their citizenship, in effect, is stolen -- stolen property is seized all the time, even when it isn't being seized from the person who actually committed the theft.

You really are one dumb fuck, aren't you? Since whenever the fuck were people held responsible for crimes their family committed? If being born inside the borders of the US is the only prerequisite for citizenship, then tough luck. But do explain me what crime the baby who is born inside the US committed? His parents might be illegals, but that does not have any impact on the status of the newborn. Because his rights are separate from those of his parents.

As for your comparison to property seizure laws, you still haven't answered Keevan's question about the morality issues. Keep on dodging and spewing this fucking bullshit and you'll get a boot up your bigoted arse soon.

Edi

[Mal_Reynolds]

Does the term Ex Post Facto mean anything to you?

If their citizenship is the result of a crime anyway, why not? Their citizenship, in effect, is stolen -- stolen property is seized all the time, even when it isn't being seized from the person who actually committed the theft.

You really are one dumb fuck, aren't you? Since whenever the fuck were people held responsible for crimes their family committed? If being born inside the borders of the US is the only prerequisite for citizenship, then tough luck. But do explain me what crime the baby who is born inside the US committed? His parents might be illegals, but that does not have any impact on the status of the newborn. Because his rights are separate from those of his parents.

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

As for your comparison to property seizure laws, you still haven't answered Keevan's question about the morality issues. Keep on dodging and spewing this fucking bullshit and you'll get a boot up your bigoted arse soon.

Actually yes, I did answer his question about the morality issues, and you obviously fucking missed it. And the only bigoted arse here is you, because you're still defending illegal activity which harms Americans. That makes you bigoted against those being harmed by the shit.

[Edi]

If their citizenship is the result of a crime anyway, why not? Their citizenship, in effect, is stolen -- stolen property is seized all the time, even when it isn't being seized from the person who actually committed the theft.

You really are one dumb fuck, aren't you? Since whenever the fuck were people held responsible for crimes their family committed? If being born inside the borders of the US is the only prerequisite for citizenship, then tough luck. But do explain me what crime the baby who is born inside the US committed? His parents might be illegals, but that does not have any impact on the status of the newborn. Because his rights are separate from those of his parents.

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?

As for your comparison to property seizure laws, you still haven't answered Keevan's question about the morality issues. Keep on dodging and spewing this fucking bullshit and you'll get a boot up your bigoted arse soon.

Actually yes, I did answer his question about the morality issues, and you obviously fucking missed it.

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).

And the only bigoted arse here is you, because you're still defending illegal activity which harms Americans. That makes you bigoted against those being harmed by the shit.

How the fuck is it bigoted of me to question the flaws in your position, asstard? I did not say I am defending illegal immigrants, but the facts of the matter are that the children of illegal immigrants who were born on US soil are US citizens, which lands your nation in pickle with the issue. 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.

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

Edi

[Mal_Reynolds]

You really are one dumb fuck, aren't you? Since whenever the fuck were people held responsible for crimes their family committed? If being born inside the borders of the US is the only prerequisite for citizenship, then tough luck. But do explain me what crime the baby who is born inside the US committed? His parents might be illegals, but that does not have any impact on the status of the newborn. Because his rights are separate from those of his parents.

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. 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.

As for your comparison to property seizure laws, you still haven't answered Keevan's question about the morality issues. Keep on dodging and spewing this fucking bullshit and you'll get a boot up your bigoted arse soon.

Actually yes, I did answer his question about the morality issues, and you obviously fucking missed it.

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.

And the only bigoted arse here is you, because you're still defending illegal activity which harms Americans. That makes you bigoted against those being harmed by the shit.

How the fuck is it bigoted of me to question the flaws in your position, asstard? I did not say I am defending illegal immigrants, but the facts of the matter are that the children of illegal immigrants who were born on US soil are US citizens, which lands your nation in pickle with the issue. 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? 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.

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.

[Simplicius]

If their citizenship is the result of a crime anyway, why not? Their citizenship, in effect, is stolen -- stolen property is seized all the time, even when it isn't being seized from the person who actually committed the theft.

False analogy. Citizenship, unlike property, isn't tangible, and cannot be stolen.

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property [emphasis added]

Disregarding the fact that the fundamental law of the land freely grants citizenship to anyone born in-country, it is impossible for the child of illegal immigrants to 'steal' citizenship because the granting of citizenship to one person does not remove it from anyone else. Is my personal citizenship or that of any other citizen lessened because the son of an immigrant 'steals' it from me? Fuck no. The guy might as well try to steal my air by breathing.

Never mind that blaming a child for the crime of his parents is bullshit no matter how you slice it, no immigrant's child can steal citizenship, and therefore cannot be punished for doing so.

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. 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.

Logically, you should also advocate execution for second-offense theft in the US. Why? Because shoplifting and internal theft alone damages the US economy to the tune of tens of billions of dollars if not more. If the cumlulative financial drain caused by illegal immigrants is enough to warrant execution, and shoplifters cause even greater damage to the economy, then those damn dirty shoplifters should be gunned down where they stand the next time they try to lift a CD, right?

Or is xenophobia your only justification for spanking a baby with an axe?

[Andrew J.]

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. 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.

I don't think any state uses firing squads. Or are you suggesting summary execution without trial?

[theski]

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. 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.

I don't think any state uses firing squads. Or are you suggesting summary execution without trial?

I think Utah still does...

[Andrew J.]

I think Utah still does...

*looks it up*

Utah banned it a couple years ago, but Idaho and Oklahoma still allow it, although lethal injection is pretty much standard throughout the US.

[Darth Wong]

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.

[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.

[Zero]

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.