Talk about obnoxious...

[jahcs]

It is all situation dependent. In some areas a monitored wall would be more effective, in others a monitored fence. But you do need some type of barrier to enforce.

A line on a map doesn't mean squat to someone walking in a desert where everything is tan. A physical barrier like a fence with signs on it or a wall with signs on it is needed to provide that demarcation.

[Guest]

Thank you, Monsieur Maginot. 

One very good point you do raise, the cost benefit consideration.

Benefit of wall: zero above current border deterrence
Cost: billions

Benefit of a defense in depth: Some (Depends on force levels)
Cost: I will guess a few billion per year, above and beyond current border surveillance efforts Customs, DEA, JTF 6, and Border Patrol conduct. 

The trap is in what happens at the fiscal appropriations level. 

"Since we spent the money on the wall, we don't need to spend as much on the troops, UAV's, surveillance intergration package."  The fig leaf is "we spent money on that wall, we improved border security" and the uncomfortable problem of defending against an invasion, an infiltration of our sovereign borders, is now safely ignored.

I've seen this movie before.  You don't take it as seriously as I do, but that is fine, we each see the world from a slightly different angle: where you sit determines what you see.  ;) 

Occhi
[right][snapback]106741[/snapback][/right]

Would you juyst drop the Maginot etc comparisions. You dont seem to understand that just because Military type enforcment is used that doesnt make comparable to a real war.

A border defense primarily aimed at keeping out unarmed civialians who pose no tactical thread when they do penetrate is closer to a prisions situation than an invading army situation.

Its not the same as a prision but the objective of the wall itself is similar to a prision wall. It slows people down and gives gaurds a more time to react.



This thread has become an example of the poor reasoning you have employed before. You make valid points against something(you additional gaurds are better than a wall) then you make an absurd conculsion("Benefit of wall: zero above current border deterrence ").
Obviously the current gaurds plus a wall would be better than just the current gaurds, yet by talking a lot you convince yourself other wise.



Also just making up vague numbers like "billions" doesnt really make you look authorative.

[Occhidiangela]

Would you just drop the Maginot etc comparisions. You dont seem to understand that just because Military type enforcment is used that doesnt make comparable to a real war.

Your advocacy of a wall is consistent with the logic of the Maginot Line.  It doesn't match the strategic future threat. Your understanding of the evolution of war and Grand Strategy is pathetic. This isn't 1914.

War in the moden age, an extension of power politics, is often undeclared.  At this point, "war" as a subset of conflict between nation states has to be considered using all elements of national power.  Force, economy, population, information, diplomatic ties: the whole package.

The Marquis de Queensbury rules are not universally enforced, nor have they been, for about the last 60 years.  Hadn't you noticed? 

]A border defense primarily aimed at keeping out unarmed civialians who pose no tactical thread when they do penetrate is closer to a prisions situation than an invading army situation.

If you don't defend your borders, and if you don't enforce them, they dissolve and are rendered moot. That is a sacrifice of sovereignty.

You, like most, fall for the trap. "Unarmed civilans" pose a political threat, and an economic threat. They have for some time. Why do you think you hear the cries in certain sectors to Allow Illegal Aliens To Vote? Who benefits from that? Who else is infiltrating with them, minnow in the stream of infiltrators?

You choose to view "war" and "tactical threat" only with armed conflict between armies. We are dealing with political strategy here: the exercise of political power, or national power, between nations to pursue political aims. One of the best ways to win is to fight assymetrically against your opponent.

The fig leaf of "the innocent civilian" fools you into accepting the infilatration of your country as something other than what it is: an infringement of American sovereignty deliberately sponsored by the Mexican Government. (Think the Mariel Boat Lift, on steroids) The camoflage by propaganda has fooled you, your choice of language betrays that.

Its not the same as a prision but the objective of the wall itself is similar to a prision wall. It slows people down and gives gaurds a more time to react.

This thread has become an example of the poor reasoning you have employed before. You make valid points against something(you additional gaurds are better than a wall) then you make an absurd conculsion("Benefit of wall: zero above current border deterrence ")

A wall won't stop people, it only slows them down. The infiltration is a long term problem, not a video game like hours long threat. It is also a dynamic problem.

At least you remain true to form: you demonstrate that you are hoodwinked by the propaganda campaign, so I am guilty of poor reasoning? I show you what is happening through a strategic lens, and you choose to stuff your fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalala. Your choice.

Obviously the current gaurds plus a wall would be better than just the current gaurds, yet by talking a lot you convince yourself other wise.

When a policy isn't working, which the current policy isn't in terms of stemming illegal immigration, it needs to change. What is a powerful enough disincentive for desparate people to convince them that crossing the border is not in their interest? A wall is merely one more obstacle to cross for a resolute man.

Also just making up vague numbers like "billions" doesnt really make you look authorative.

[right][snapback]106753[/snapback][/right]

I make that estimate based on what I think the force levels are required for the border. I haven't sat down and devised a complete Operations Plan -- I am not on active duty anymore.

I can only work orders of magnitude. Two divisions.

With a bit over one division a year in Bosnia, we spent a couple of billion. The OPTAR necessary to run a divsion 24/7 runs in the low billions. This depends on if you go light, light heavy, or heavy. I would use a light division, with a plus up of a couple of extra battalions of helicopters, extra C2 support, plussed up with added MP's for PoW administration and confinement. (Depending on RoE.) I would add artillery into the mix at high density avenues of approach.

I estimate "billions" for the wall, but I may be lowballing it. The cost could be in tens of billions. Basis? The cost of the Big Dig in Boston, a massive infrastructure project of somewhat greater complexity, which has passed the 11 billion originally budgeted for it. The "Wall" is an infrastructure project of similar scope and scale, but of a different sort of civil engineering challenge.

What have you offered as an estimate, and on what basis? Nothing. Go do your own homework before you malign my estimates, and show your work. :whistling:

You don't see an invasion, I do, and I have since about 1991. The difference in perspective has taken this discussion to your usual departure into insult. Once again, "where you sit determines what you see."

The policy and strategy in Mexico City: support invasion by infiltration. NAFTA didn't solve their inherent economic problems, nor did a multi billion dollar bail out of the peso. Clever folks in Mexico City have more than one strategy, they aren't stupid. Corrupt, maybe, but not stupid.

So, consider other strategies. This strategy has multiple political motives: one (poorly covered) is to overturn the loss of the Southwest in the 1800's; the other (more obvious) is to ease off the population pressure in a country with a shrinking middle class. Another is to embed elected politicians in the US Congress who are sympathetic to Mexico and Mexican perspectives. This is a long term plan, not a short term strategy.

The beneficial effect of billions of dollars in hard currency, sent from workers in America, legal and otherwise, to families in dire straits back home in Mexico, ameliorates slightly the econominc problems in Mexico, and a number of its southern neighbors.

The meme about "immigrants made America" is flawed due to expired context, and is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign. Our industrial base is not growing, as it did during a century of massive immigration, it is shrinking. The labor market is not static, it is dynamic. The "need" for immigrants to fill a labor market is NOT what it was during our explosive growth period. The appeal to a fallacious analogue to the European and Asian migrations into America is a smoke screen, and part of The Big Lie. The poorly enforced policy on quotas and legal immigration levels is adjustable, and must be adjustable based in American needs, not the needs of the world's desperate in their various desparate countries. "Send me poor, your huddled masses" was a poem, an after the fact romanticization of the great migrations. It was not an act of Congress, and not an iron clad policy. Nor should it be.

If there is no pressure relief for a poor population with dim prospects for economic growth, what happens in Mexico? Given its culture and history, most likely internal unrest, certainly economic strife. No one in power in Mexico City is fool enough to adopt a policy counterproductive to the long term interests of their embedded Oligarchical power structure, nor to stability -- not if another strategy can be pursued.

That strategy has been an ongoing flushing of their econmic and population problems north, and in allowing others to pass through as well. They don't want Central American problems exported to them, but they are happy to export theirs north. This strategy fulfills multiple aims with one method: the migration north. It is a politically supported infiltration, not innocent immigration. The sheep who are herded north are often oblivious to how they are being used, as sheep often are.

On our side of the border, creating another class of dependents and patronage is of benefit to some vested interstes. Besides the political patronage networks, cheap labor is cheap labor, just as attractive to many current companies as it was to Dupont, to Morgan, to Ford, to the Union Pacific Railroad in the days of laize faire capitalism.

Consider the iron law of wages and labor dumping, which is similar to product dumping tactics used to take over a market. Among the long term political aims is a sort of reconquista of the Southwest, and the more practical near term aim of dissolving the border: that act would allow Mexico to keep dumping its problems on the US, whose taxpayers are sheered to support it, or whose services degrade as a consequence of over use of limited resources.

The strategy is not solely attractive to folks in Mexico City. Their allies in this nation, the willing and the blissfully ignorant, are a fifth column who is, at the moment, given privileged sanctuary.

The "wall" solves nothing without a shoot to kill order, or without a significant construction of internment and repatriation camps for those captured. Then there is the hidden logistic cost of transporting those to be repatriated back to where they belong. More tens of millions of dollars. Shoot to kill is both a far cheaper policy, and a better deterrent.

Let's not fool ourselves. A defended border solves part of the problem. The more difficult task, uprooting the fifth column, is an undertaking that, IMO, dwarfs the so called "war on terror" in scope and scale, and in the political will to carry it through.

What did Pogo say? "We have met the enemy, and he is us." :P

I have little confidence in the current leadership, in either party, being able to form a coherent policy until some move is made to actually enforce the borders, and to fund the INS and Border Patrol at appropriate levels, and to sack those who turn a blind eye, or are on the take. And to send a signal that crossing the border other than at lawful checkpoints is a deadly dangerous risk decision.

I also have little confidence that the average citizen stays aware enough to see through the propaganda smoke screens.

Don't waste time building a wall, Mr Maginot: walls can be outflanked both physically and politically.

If we are to spend billions on infrastructure of FDR scale public works, there are roads and bridges all over the country in need of repair, but no need for an outflankable wall.

Occhi

[jahcs]

If you don't defend your borders, and if you don't enforce them, they dissolve and are rendered moot.  That is a sacrifice of sovereignty. 

<snip>
I would add artillery into the mix at high density avenues of approach.
<snip>

Don't waste time building a wall, Mr Maginot: walls can be outflanked both physically and politically. 

If we are to spend billions on infrastructure of FDR scale public works, there are roads and bridges all over the country in need of repair, but no need for an outflankable wall. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]106767[/snapback][/right]

I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that we build an "impassable" barrier and then not monitor it. Without some sort of physical barrier our military, or other agency, would just be detaining and/or shooting people out in the desert. If you make some sort of defined border, that can be easily seen by people on the ground, then you have a clear line that should not be crossed.

Personally I don't care if we space pickets every 20 meters with signs on them, build a fence, or dig a tank ditch, but there must be some sort of clear demarcation for folks on the ground. There also must be some sort of surveilance and enforcement of the border.

And the notion of artillery being used to fire on civilians is ludicrous. People go to war crimes trials and hang for that.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that we build an "impassable" barrier and then not monitor it.&nbsp; Without some sort of physical barrier our military, or other agency, would just be detaining and/or shooting people out in the desert.&nbsp; If you make some sort of defined border, that can be easily seen by people on the ground, then you have a clear line that should not be crossed.

Personally I don't care if we space pickets every 20 meters with signs on them, build a fence, or dig a tank ditch, but there must be some sort of clear demarcation for folks on the ground.&nbsp; There also must be some sort of surveilance and enforcement of the border.

And the notion of artillery being used to fire on civilians is ludicrous.&nbsp; People go to war crimes trials and hang for that.
[right][snapback]106769[/snapback][/right]

Here are a few questions for you to chew on.

How can it be a war crime if there is no declared war?

How can an invader not be considered a combatant?

How do you classify armed paramilitary groups, those hired to support and defend drug runners crossing the border?

They aren't "civilians" and we attack irregular forces like them with artillery, smallarms, mortars, and air frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A wall is indeed, to agree with you, no better than the forces and methods you have manning it.

My argument remains, given the current technology in surveillance, and in mobility, that a wall is a 19th century approach to the border security problem. Given less than infinite resources, the allocation of funds to an active defense, rather than as a static defense, no wall is necessary. Observation of the border and avenues of ingress is, and a QRF is how to do it using current doctrine and equipment.

As to "civilians," you are a lawful border and under protected status as a legal crosser if you do so at approved border crossing sights in accordance with the law. There are many along our border.

If you are an unlawful, you are an invader, and have classified yourself as a target by your actions. If the Mexican government has the ability to spread the word about "border crossing avenues" they have the wherewithal to spread the word "don't try this at other than authorized border crossing points, or you'll get shot."

If the RoE is tight, then you may be right, and artillery might be unusable, just as artillery and 2000-5000 pound bombs are frequently unusable in heavily built up urban areas in Iraq, or other MOUT environments.

The mistake is to fail to use advantageous synergy. If your border patrol approaches a group of "immigrants" who turn out to be heavily armed drug runners, a call for fire is just the thing to tip the assymetry in the favor of the border patrol. They are armed, they are infiltrating, they are invading.

That is a legitimate military target.

You still have to VID the target, and follow doctrinal fire control measures. I am not advocating making the border a free fire zone. The deterrent effect of a few fire fights, or a few shotings would be, I think, significant if yo get the word out.

But I do advocate raising the ante. I do advocate treating the border as sovereign, and as a line we no longer accept being moved. And as worth defending.

Try this simple idea on for size, as a KISS RoE.

A: "Stop, or I shoot." (In English, and Spanish)

B: Fails to stop.

A: Shoots.

This is not rocket science.

Occhi

[Guest]

No

You keep reframing the argument in order to keep with your point.

[Alram]

Note that the bird's eye appears to be closed. Does that make this an example of an ill eagle border crossing?




And here is another picture of a typical illeagle.

[Ashock]

While you make some good points, Occhi, you raise some further questions, at least for this observer.
1)&nbsp; What is Uninsured Motorist coverage?&nbsp; And how, exactly, is it relevant to the issue of illegal immigration?&nbsp; i.e.&nbsp; Can you point to some (*grins*) more figures that would give a realistic proportion of the uninsured drivers who are illegal immigrants?&nbsp; I have a hard time swallowing your implication that it is close to a 1:1 ratio.

2)&nbsp; What about those employers who do need and hire 'minimum wage' workers and do the wink and nod at the SS number provided and the name thereon?&nbsp; I suspect there are more than a small number of them too.
[right][snapback]106713[/snapback][/right]

1) We have the same thing in California..... and the overwhelming majority of uninsured (and unlicensed) motorists are illegals from Mexico. And yes, I also have an uninsured motorist clause in my auto insurance.


2) After living in Cali for 10 years, I have found that those Mexicans who are working and paying into the SS program are *legal*. Those who are not, work for cash.

Also, you are forgetting to mention the free education that their kids are getting.... at my expense. This whole rule of "born in the US - citizen automatically" is complete and utter crap. It gives Mexicans incentive to come here, pop out babies, get social benefits and eventually throgh them get legal.... just for giving birth on US soil. Something stinks about that, don't you think?


Oh and my parents did make minimum wage for the first years or so after coming here..... legally. While there are highschool kids and OTB (off the boat) immigrants, there will never be a shortage of hands for the low paying jobs.... registered and legal hands. Those who deserve their chance and those who do not waive their old county's flags and demand something for nothing. Those who strive to become a part of their new home and not treat it like their old one from which they ran away in the first place. Those who do their best to learn to speak English ASAP and not spend 20-30 years living here and still do not know how to say "How do I get to the nearest Social Security Office" in English.

Yes, this country was built on immigrants. Immigrants who were willing to work hard and appreciated the fact that at least here, their hard work will amount to something instead of demanding that things are given to them like it is their god-given right, for some unknown reason.

It is very important to recognise that this country *was* build by immigrants..... *legal* immigrants.



-A

[Jester]

The meme about "immigrants made America" is flawed due to expired context, and is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign.
[right][snapback]106767[/snapback][/right]

I think the point about "immigrants made America" isn't that you *need* them, but that you *are* them.

Unless you're full-blooded indigenous, you or your ancestors came to already-occupied land searching for opportunity (against the wishes of the occupants, in a great many cases). These are people trying to do the same, and now they are being kept out in the name of the great "we Americans," which is somewhat out of sync with the history of your country. The people whose "needs" are being considered has changed.

Not that your policy has to match your history, necessarily. Some people (myself included) just figure that it might be a good idea, in this case.

Why not just ease up the immigration laws? Then you could stop throwing around kill-on-sight strategies for getting rid of people who just want to make a living for themselves and their families. After all, the problem is that they're coming illegally, not that they're coming at all, right?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I think the point about "immigrants made America" isn't that you *need* them, but that you *are* them.

No I am not, Jester, nor are most Americans. I am American. Born here of American parents. I am not an immigrant. Do you understand that concept? I have a country, a nation, and its name has no hyphen.

Unless you're full-blooded indigenous, you or your ancestors came to already-occupied land searching for opportunity (against the wishes of the occupants, in a great many cases). These are people trying to do the same, and now they are being kept out in the name of the great "we Americans," which is somewhat out of sync with the history of your country. The people whose "needs" are being considered has changed.

Way to perpetuate the Big Lie.

The "indigenous" weren't ever American until they chose to assimilate, were conquered, or variously blended into the oddball mix that makes America what it is. Some chose to opt out, not to assimilate, and live on the reservation and remain "indigenous."

This land, my nation, wasn't America until the European migration and mixing made it so, and until a considerable amount of blood was shed to form it, and to bound it: to set its borders.

Take the fallacious word game, and put it back in the misnomer drawer.

Why not just ease up the immigration laws? Then you could stop throwing around kill-on-sight strategies for getting rid of people who just want to make a living for themselves and their families. After all, the problem is that they're coming illegally, not that they're coming at all, right?

-Jester
[right][snapback]106782[/snapback][/right]
Sure, and ease up on the robbery laws while we are at it? I want my neignbors BMW. Heck, I'd like a little relief from the assault and battery laws after I break them, given there are a few folks I'd like to beat over the head with a baseball bat. (J/K)

The problem is indeed that the illegals are coming at all. The legal immigrants are more than welcome to come here and join in the great quest for that ever elusive American dream.

Generally law abiding, coming in under the lawful, Constitutionally vlaid policies already in force.

For a guy who likes to quote international law as much as you do, I find your disrespect of my nation's laws slightly hypocritical. (I find the disregard of those same laws by some of our own politicians greviously insulting. You, I'll buy a Guinness for. Not them.) FWIW, I also find hypocritical that Pres Bush tried to strong arm the recent Afghan court who, under their laws, were sentencing an apostate Muslim who converted to Christianity to death. Under due process of law, just as we do here in Texas. Smell the irony. The Pope needs to stay the hell out of our judicial process, we need to stay out of the Afghan's judicial process. Heck, they had an election, is Pres Bush asserting that their "democracy" isn't valid? If so, what are we doing over there?

My grandparents on one side were legal immigrants within this century. Names still at Ellis Island. Obeyed the rules. Did not break the law to enter the country. A few generations back were some Scots and Irish immigrants. And so on.

I am a native born American, here in America of American parents, just as a native born German is born in Germany, and a native born Spaniard is born in Spain. Or are they all Goths? By your implied standard of "reaching far back" all those Germans are Goths, or Franks, and not really Germans.

You might be surprised at how harsh, down here in South Texas, some of the second and third generation Americans of Mexican descent are on illegal immigration. They have no more taste for it than I do. They did it right, their families did it right, the hard and lawful way, and are resentful of the freeloaders.

Occhi

[jahcs]

Here are a few questions for you to chew on.

How can it be a war crime if there is no declared war?

I appologize for not defining my war crimes comment. The comment was not to be taken as directly applying to this situation. It was more an examination of history and drawing the point that you don't need this much escalation to stop folks looking for work. Even in Free Fire Zones in Declared Wars Military Commanders that fire on civilians and are caught are put on trial.

How can an invader not be considered a combatant?

Many of the folks crossing the border could be argued as being economic refugees that didn't file the correct paperwork.

A wall is indeed, to agree with you, no better than the forces and methods you  have manning it. 

My argument remains, given the current technology in surveillance, and in mobility, that a wall is a 19th century approach to the border security problem.  Given less than infinite resources, the allocation of funds to an active defense, rather than as a static defense, no wall is necessary.  Observation of the border and avenues of ingress is, and a QRF is how to do it using current doctrine and equipment.

I don't think we are debating that with you. I am debating the need for a physical barrier that must be crossed to initiate the ROE. Whether that's a river, a fence, a wall, a trench, or a bunch of signposts, there needs to be something there.

As to "civilians," you are a lawful border and under protected status as a legal crosser if you do so at approved border crossing sights in accordance with the law.  There are many along our border.

No debate there either.

If you are an unlawful, you are an invader, and have classified yourself as a target by your actions.  If the Mexican government has the ability to spread the word about "border crossing avenues" they have the wherewithal to spread the word "don't try this at other than authorized border crossing points, or you'll get shot." 

If the Mexican Government is doing so much to promote the border crossings it could be argued that the crossers comprise a disorganized militia and therefore Mexico has declared war on the U.S. by sending an invading army across the border. Stiff sanctions need to be placed on Mexico for aiding these illegal crossings anyway.

If the RoE is tight, then you may be right, and artillery might be unusable, just as artillery and 2000-5000 pound bombs are frequently unusable in heavily built up urban areas in Iraq, or other MOUT environments. 

The mistake is to fail to use advantageous synergy.  If your border patrol approaches a group of "immigrants" who turn out to be heavily armed drug runners, a call for fire is just the thing to tip the assymetry in the favor of the border patrol.  They are armed, they are infiltrating, they are invading.

That is a legitimate military target.

If, if, if... Instead of using some border patrol officers with pistols we put a Striker Brigade on the Border... If we put up remote control sentry guns... If we put up antipersonnel minefields in a layered defense... If we have C130 gunships orbiting the border towns... If we build a border patrol force with the tools and training neccesary to meet the incoming threat then we have a winning scenario. Where we draw the line on what is needed is the sticking point.

You still have to VID the target, and follow doctrinal fire control measures. I am not advocating making the border a free fire zone.  The deterrent effect of a few fire fights, or a few shotings would be, I think, significant if yo get the word out.

But I do advocate raising the ante.  I do advocate treating the border as sovereign, and as a line we no longer accept being moved.  And as worth defending.

Try this simple idea on for size, as a KISS RoE. 

A:  "Stop, or I shoot." (In English, and Spanish)

B:  Fails to stop.

A:  Shoots.

This is not rocket science.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106772[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for clarifying your engagement strategy. Frequently you have talked of shooting the border crossers. I assumed you meant not in a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality but we all know what happens when things get left unsaid and we start assuming...

[Occhidiangela]

Even in Free Fire Zones in Declared Wars Military Commanders that fire on civilians and are caught are put on trial.

Some are, some are not.

Many of the folks crossing the border could be argued as being economic refugees that didn't file the correct paperwork.

I consider that part of the Big Lie. If they are refugees, why are they not lawfully going through refugee process for asylum, the legitimate path. Sorry, that dog does not hunt.

I am debating the need for a physical barrier that must be crossed to initiate the ROE.&nbsp; Whether that's a river, a fence, a wall, a trench, or a bunch of signposts, there needs to be something there.

Understand.

If the Mexican Government is doing so much to promote the border crossings it could be argued that the crossers comprise a disorganized militia and therefore Mexico has declared war on the U.S. by sending an invading army across the border.&nbsp; Stiff sanctions need to be placed on Mexico for aiding these illegal crossings anyway.

Agreed. First, require them to enforce the vehicle safety requirements to drive on I 35. That was part of the NAFTA deal. If not, turn them back at the border. Let it rot. Second, enforce their own environmental laws.

If, if, if...&nbsp; Instead of using some border patrol officers with pistols we put a Striker Brigade on the Border...&nbsp; If we put up remote control sentry guns...&nbsp; If we put up antipersonnel minefields in a layered defense...&nbsp; If we have C130 gunships orbiting the border towns...&nbsp; If we build a border patrol force with the tools and training neccesary to meet the incoming threat then we have a winning scenario.&nbsp; Where we draw the line on what is needed is the sticking point.

Mine fields in some areas, yes. Observed mine fields. The current approach, of relying on undermanned and unfunded administrative personnel is being assymetrically overcome by mass, by fifth column, and by bad tactics. (And a lack of will.) The key is the robust surveillance program, and an engagement policy with teeth in it, and forces to implement it. And a permissive RoE.

Thanks for clarifying your engagement strategy.&nbsp; Frequently you have talked of shooting the border crossers.&nbsp; I assumed you meant not in a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality but we all know what happens when things get left unsaid and we start assuming...

[right][snapback]106794[/snapback][/right]
Not a straategy, a Technique, part of a menu of options. I'd like to leave the options open for interdictory fires. I don't consider the unlawful border crossers in any way, shape, or form "innocent." Fear of arrest or deportation is a non deterrent. Time to raise the risk equation.

There is a structure in international law called "A Maritime Exclusion Zone." In it, neutrals are warned to stay the hell out, at risk of their own peril due to the high probability of explosives and shooting going on. (A good case study is around the Falklands/Malvinas in 1982.) Parts of our border can similarly be declared an exclusion zone.

As noted before, what is severely lacking is political will.

That lack may have at its root a case of too much of the Baby Boom Generation, and much of Generation Whine, not believing that America is worth fighting for. That means, in part, worth killing for.

There wouldn't be a U S of A absent some Americans, Winfield Scott or Andy Jackson as examples, and their soldiers, who decided it was worth fighting to create. Somethings you have to fight for to create, some things you have to fight for to preserve: ask an Israeli, or any veteran of the Red Army, or any Englishman who fought in WW II. For that matter, ask anyone who served in the NVA. ;)

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

I am going to let Jester field the interesting view of history you are espousing.

But I do want to ask about this:

You might be surprised at how harsh, down here in South Texas, some of the second and third generation Americans of Mexican descent are on illegal immigration.&nbsp; They have no more taste for it than I do.&nbsp; They did it right, their families did it right, the hard and lawful way, and are resentful of the freeloaders.

This discussion (like many :P ) has gone off in all directions. But how did we get to the 'illegal immigrant = freeloader' place?

Seems to me that many do work their tails off, supporting both a family 'here' and a family 'back there'. So what is to resent in that?

[Occhidiangela]

I am going to let Jester field the interesting view of history you are espousing.

But I do want to ask about this:
This discussion (like many :P ) has gone off in all directions.&nbsp; But how did we get to the 'illegal immigrant = freeloader' place?

Seems to me that many do work their tails off, supporting both a family 'here' and a family 'back there'.&nbsp; So what is to resent in that?
[right][snapback]106800[/snapback][/right]

Interesting view you have from up there.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Interesting view you have from up there.&nbsp;

Occhi
[right][snapback]106804[/snapback][/right]

Occhi, from 'up here' I don't have a view of your problems at all. Hence my odd questions. :)

We have many immigrants in my city. Most are here legally; some are not.
We have many freeloaders in my city. Most are not immigrants; some are.
We have many homeless people in my city. Some actually were born and raised here; most were not.

None of these issues are ones I have bothered to post about. Certainly none are the subjects of national debate in my country at the moment.

The issue of illegal immigration is a hot topic in the U.S. of A. at the moment. Hot topics press all manner of buttons that have no rational basis.

If the 'illegal immigrants=freeloaders' is one such, so be it. At least now I know that is how it is perceived in certain areas.

[Alram]

Illegal immigrants take away jobs from Ameircans.
Illegal immigrants come here to go on welfare.
Sounds like two of the rallying cries are mutually contradictory.

[Occhidiangela]

The issue of illegal immigration is a hot topic in the U.S. of A. at the moment.&nbsp; Hot topics press all manner of buttons that have no rational basis.&nbsp;
[right][snapback]106808[/snapback][/right]

It has been a hot button topic for quite a long time. For a wide variety of reasons, this scab on the back of our immigration policies is being picked with some vigor at present, because finally, some people have decided that putting up with the same old business from "the powers that be" is no longer acceptable.

The core problem is in the attitude of hyphenation. The blatant disinterest in assimilation is another deeply rooted problem, a symptom of disunion. The corruption that the "turn a blind eye" policy encourages to illegal activity, and all the added rot that spreads through a wide spectrum of our society, is worthy of a few books.

I have said enough for a while. The public discussion is skewed, spun, and a Big Lie is used where some think they can get away with it. Listen very carefully to the sound bytes. Who is crafting them, why, and to what end?

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Thanks for all that you did say, Occhi. :) Other perspectives are always a Good Thing™ to hear, even if I don't agree with them. :P

And, speaking of other perspectives, can we briefly talk about another (apparently) knee-jerk assumption you have?

You said:

The blatant disinterest in assimilation is another deeply rooted problem, a symptom of disunion.

From a Canuck viewpoint, the one does not necessarily follow the other. Our Powers That Be have, for quite some time, been pursuing a policy of cultural mosaic, not assimilation. The jury is still out, IMO, as to the benefits of this approach, but it is by no means all negative or a sign of disunion on other issues.

[Guest]

They dont pay taxes in many cases. Yes they dont make use of everything the US goverment does for its citizens but do automatically benifit from many services just by living here.

The truth is most do work very hard for only modest pay, but that tends to benifit rich guys more do little for avergae citizens and hurt the US poor. So the only fair thing to look at is taxes.

[Chaerophon]

All that I will say is this: it must be very frustrating to work in a maquiladora, 12 hours a day, in some cases locked inside of your place of work, for spare change (by American standards), and see that right across the border (often less than 10 minutes away) you would be making 5 or even 10 times as much from the same company, for the same work. Might make you want to stick it to the man. Might even make you want to sneak over to the man's house, blend in to the party, reap his rewards, stay for desert, and not thank him for dinner.

Sometimes business policy and "efficiency" concerns come back to bite you in the ass. Well, not the businessman's ass so much as that of the blue-collar worker. The businessmen are fine.

A disclaimer: before anyone brings it up, I'm not saying that there aren't Canadian companies exploiting overseas workers to the nth degree.