Smugglers Get Desperate

Allowing the use of deadly force to stop illegal immigrants from crossing our borders is a touchy call. I'd have to think about that some more.

Obviously, why go to the trouble of having borders, immigration laws, and border patrol agents if you're not prepared to back it up.

That's the real problem I see. We want our border crossing laws enforced, but at what cost? A human life? I suspect that's what goes through the minds off those that would make the decision of whether or not deadly force should be authorized.

Apparently it's a bluff that's being called.

I think when you're a country with a huge expanse of border miles on both the north and south, it's in reality a pipe dream to expect every inch of it to be securely defended without the threat of deadly force (at least until survelliance technology catches up to what's necessary to eliminate that necessity).

But that said, I'm not sure deadly force is warranted in stopping illegal immigration - the punishment outweighs the crime, in this case (assuming no terrorist intentions are involved, which you can't really assume these days anyway). Which goes back to making it a pipe dream to believe we can completely make our borders impervious to illegal entry without deadly force.

Does the punishment fit the crime?

Border patrols chasing tresspassers all over the desert is expensive and not very effective.
Land mines are very cheap, and very effective on the other hand.

Trying to value human life in dollars and cents is hard work...

Barry: I don't think it's a matter of punishment and crime, as you're thinking. Being caught and deported isn't a punishment, it's stopping a crime in progress. Illegal immigrants aren't punished, they're just sent home. So the question is really similar (though not exactly) to whether or not it's proper to use deadly force to stop a crime in progress, such as a robbery or theft.

But even beyond that, illegal immigration isn't exactly a crime in the traditional sense, because border security is properly an issue of sovereignty, not law enforcement. A nation is defined by its borders, and breaching a border is an act of war.

Marty: Yeah, hah, we put land mines on the border and I can't even imagine the international response. I think an Israeli-style fence would be better all around.

Michael: Good point. I hadn't thought of the national sovereignty vs. civililan law enforcement angle. But if you are correct and "breaching the border is an act of war" why are not any illegal immigrants summarily executed upon capture instead of deported? Why just the ones caught "in the act"? Is there a difference, in the eye of sovereignty?

Barry: Actually, Mexico does defend its southern border with machine guns and does shoot people on sight. Why don't we? Probably because we're the most compassionate country on the planet.

'... the most compassionate country on the planet.'

Which scale are you using to measure compassion? Please let me know.

'I wouldn't be generally adverse to using deadly force to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border, when necessary... am I wrong?'


How can you expect anyone to comment on this statement? 'I wouldn't be generally adverse to using deadly force to stop from committing , when necessary... am I wrong?' Come on... Give me an argument as to why it's OK to shoot illegal immigrants please.

Sorry that should have read:

'I wouldn't be generally adverse to using deadly force to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border, when necessary... am I wrong?'


How can you expect anyone to comment on this statement? 'I wouldn't be generally adverse to using deadly force to stop [insert type of criminal] from committing [insert name of appropriate crime], when necessary... am I wrong?' Come on... Give me an argument as to why it's OK to shoot illegal immigrants please.

Trep: Apparently some people had no problem commenting on the statement as-is. If you don't want to comment you certainly don't have to, but please don't feel like you deserve more substantial posts than I feel like writing.

>I wouldn't be generally adverse to using deadly force to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border, when necessary... am I wrong?

Well, you're a religious guy, right? Is there a Commandment that authorizes you to kill people because they want to live in the "most compassionate country on the planet"? What special thing did _you_ do that gives you the right to live here but not them?

I'd say that between the states' continued preservation of state-sanction killing in the form of capital punishment and your apparent willingness to murder people seeking a better life, the "compassionate" index you claim for this country might require adjustment.

Am I wrong?

m: Yes, you're wrong. The Bible clearly supports both military defense of country and capital punishment.

Military defense against unarmed invaders? Children, say?

In any event, it's comforting to know that you can get God to justify your desire to kill people.

m: Even better! Sometimes God-defined justice requires society to kill.

>Even better! Sometimes God-defined justice requires society to kill.

I guess when in the Bible "Love thy neighbor as thyself," they must not mean Mexicans, huh?

> Sometimes God-defined justice requires society to kill.

I guess your interpretation of Jesus' commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is "except Mexicans," huh?

mike: Love precludes national defense? I think you're trying to twist "love" into a shape that justifies your own preconceptions.