Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Looks like there's an arrest warrant out for him for felon in possession of a firearm as well as felony immigration violations now.
 
Had a BP agent in Tucson sector just the other day attempting to apprehend a group of 6 illegals on the west side of the Babo mountains. One of them fought with him as he was trying to cuff him up and the illegal managed to get hold of the agent's gun. Another agent there on scene shot and killed the illegal. This is the third assault on agents this past month that resulted in injury to an agent. And there was the death of the Van Horn station agent just the other week.
 
Still dangerous as ever out there.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I️ was also surprised by the verdict - manslaughter in this non-lawyer’s opinion was the provable crime and my cynical side says the SF DA’s office new that but went for murder to quell conservatives nationwide knowing they would not get a conviction
The Sanctuary Cities movement and now CA as a Sanctuary State is an insult and threat.

Build the security systems (walls/fences/patrols/surveillance)
Increase enforcement on illegal aliens and their enablers
Sanction govs that refuse to accept their deported citizens back

Rinse lather repeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/30/lied-kate-steinle-case/

I found this to be a good discussion of the trial and why the verdict was what it was. Found it compelling to think both A) Zarate definitely fired the weapon, yet also B) there is reasonable doubt that he committed first degree murder.

And before “RIP my mentions,” I don’t think he should have been in this country and I’m not that big a fan of the idea of sanctuary cities. His immigration status isn’t really germane to the sentencing in this case re: manslaughter (what he should have been convicted of IMHO), and first degree murder. 

But we can and should have both discussions. 

 

1. Was his sentencing and trial fair.... no. Seriously guns do not just “go off.” His negligence/stupidity led to that weapon firing same as if he was in a car randomly touching stuff and ran her over. It’s pitiful that wasn’t the standard applies.

 

2. Sanctuary cities and their contribution to the death of the victim. Zarate wasn’t arrested by SF.... he was in Federal Custody. SF actively extradited him to the city to stand for a 20 year old drug Warrant, they didn’t charge him, and then through policy refused to hold him so he could be returned to Federal Custody. WTFO!? How is the city, and the state not called to task for that by the media. Somehow supporters of these policies or the #resist people against all things Trump seem to be ignoring that fact entirely. If I was the families lawyer I would be naming the city, DAs office, and State in a hell of a civil case for setting the conditions which directly contributed to the victims death.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, firearms accidentally discharge regularly. Not saying that’s necssarrily what happened here, but no one but Zarate really knows. The fact that the single bullet richoched off the ground before it struck Steinle to me makes a much stronger case for involuntary manslaughter than first degree murder. Then again I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express law school so take that for what it’s worth.

I agree with you generally that the way the state and city handled his detention (or lack there of) immediately before the shooting was poor. I’m a fan of sane, just national policies in a lot of cases and immigration fits that bill to me. We’re one nation, we need one smart policy that applied everywhere.

That being said, there’s an inherent tension in both parties where they don’t want the feds dictating policy on some things (immigration enforcement and marijuana on the left for instance, school prayer and abortion and many other issues on the right), yet they want the feds to impose their preferred policies on those who they disagree with. Just as long as we’re all honest about that duality these are policies that should be widely discussed and debated.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, firearms accidentally discharge regularly. Not saying that’s necssarrily what happened here, but no one but Zarate really knows. The fact that the single bullet richoched off the ground before it struck Steinle to me makes a much stronger case for involuntary manslaughter than first degree murder. Then again I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express law school so take that for what it’s worth.

Firearms accidentally discharge regularly?  Do pencils also mispell words?  People might accidentally discharge firearms, but it is still caused by a person.

"But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal."

http://wgntv.com/2017/11/30/garcia-zarate-acquitted-of-homicide-in-kate-steinles-death/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general feeling I get is that the City of San Francisco is more concerned that an illegal immigrant not be subjected to immigration laws than the fact that an innocent person was shot to death by someone who had no right to be in the country. 

They’re more concerned about their holy status as a “sanctuary” than hey are over the death of this woman. Nothing could be more political. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

 

1. The gun was a Sig P226 or similar. From what I’ve read, these are double action only trigger weapons with a trigger pull of around 15 pounds. It was a stolen Fed BLM agent’s weapon which means it would have been inherently a safe weapon unless the thief paid for gunsmithing or modified it himself. How could the prosecution not call in an expert to demonstrate how difficult it is to “accidentally” fire a weapon like this? These jurors are from SAN FRANCISCO and more than likely know exactly dick about firearms, how they operate, and have been conditioned for years to fear them.

 

2. Sanctuary city/state policies are modern day nullification and interestingly enough are being pushed by the same democrat party that believed in nullification that led to secession and the Civil War. We cannot have a sovereign country without having defined borders and the rule of law respected by all of our states, cities, municipalities, and even the wacko federal judges that love to legislate from the bench. Immigration law is specifically a granted power of the US Congress in the Constitution. But I guess you’d need to give a shit about the Constitution in the first place and San Francisco, California, New York and soon the be New Jersey don’t.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, firearms accidentally discharge regularly. Not saying that’s necssarrily what happened here, but no one but Zarate really knows. The fact that the single bullet richoched off the ground before it struck Steinle to me makes a much stronger case for involuntary manslaughter than first degree murder. Then again I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express law school so take that for what it’s worth.

I agree with you generally that the way the state and city handled his detention (or lack there of) immediately before the shooting was poor. I’m a fan of sane, just national policies in a lot of cases and immigration fits that bill to me. We’re one nation, we need one smart policy that applied everywhere.

That being said, there’s an inherent tension in both parties where they don’t want the feds dictating policy on some things (immigration enforcement and marijuana on the left for instance, school prayer and abortion and many other issues on the right), yet they want the feds to impose their preferred policies on those who they disagree with. Just as long as we’re all honest about that duality these are policies that should be widely discussed and debated.

Firearms discharge regularly? Do you even gun, bro?

BTW, it was a LEO Sig P239. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moose, the weapon in question is DA/SA and the defense argued that it was stolen while in SA mode and the light trigger pull of 4.4 lbs contributed to the gun “accidentally discharging.”  Anytime the trigger is squeezed, it is no longer an accident and becomes negligence in my opinion, but many folks still consider it an accident if they squeeze the trigger and something they don’t like happens.

NS— firearms definitely do not regularly discharge accidentally.  Mechanical failures causing a discharge are extremely rare, but you might be of the camp who considers it an accident if you squeeze the trigger and recive an unintended outcome.  

My general take on this trial is that we don’t know what evidence the jury heard to reach their outcome.  However, that so many liberals I know are pleased this guy escaped a murder conviction has forever turned me off to their opinions on gun control.  Here we have a multiple time felon, illegal immigrant, with a stolen police weapon who kills an innocent person with the stolen weapon.  If one cannot support  a criminal conviction in this instance, we have a philosophical disagreement that can never be bridged and nothing left to talk about regarding gun control.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

2. Sanctuary city/state policies are modern day nullification and interestingly enough are being pushed by the same democrat party that believed in nullification that led to secession and the Civil War. We cannot have a sovereign country without having defined borders and the rule of law respected by all of our states, cities, municipalities, and even the wacko federal judges that love to legislate from the bench. Immigration law is specifically a granted power of the US Congress in the Constitution. But I guess you’d need to give a shit about the Constitution in the first place and San Francisco, California, New York and soon the be New Jersey don’t.

 

 

The sanctuary city idea is actually fairly interesting. Surprising it’s still a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Moose, the weapon in question is DA/SA and the defense argued that it was stolen while in SA mode and the light trigger pull of 4.4 lbs contributed to the gun “accidentally discharging.”  Anytime the trigger is squeezed, it is no longer an accident and becomes negligence in my opinion, but many folks still consider it an accident if they squeeze the trigger and something they don’t like happens.

NS— firearms definitely do not regularly discharge accidentally.  Mechanical failures causing a discharge are extremely rare, but you might be of the camp who considers it an accident if you squeeze the trigger and recive an unintended outcome.  

My general take on this trial is that we don’t know what evidence the jury heard to reach their outcome.  However, that so many liberals I know are pleased this guy escaped a murder conviction has forever turned me off to their opinions on gun control.  Here we have a multiple time felon, illegal immigrant, with a stolen police weapon who kills an innocent person with the stolen weapon.  If one cannot support  a criminal conviction in this instance, we have a philosophical disagreement that can never be bridged and nothing left to talk about regarding gun control.

Negligent discharge is the more accurate term and yes, those do happen regularly. YMMV on that source, but it's the first thing I could find on the googles. I find it pretty likely that Zarate pulled the trigger and that the firearm worked as God intended it, but none of us know that for sure. Still a negligent discharge, not a premeditated homicide.

Re: your last paragraph...I 100% agree he should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter for his negligent discharge of a firearm. It seems from the reporting I've read about the case that the prosecution pushed heavily for a first degree murder charge, and I think stretches credulity to say this guy, in a pre-meditated way, killed Ms. Steinle with malicious intent. The idea that the prosecution and/or judge did not make the case for and the sentencing instructions to the jury airtight in such that we got a more just outcome, I'm not lawyer enough to speak to intelligently.

We agree he shouldn't have been in the country (especially after multiple prior deportations and crimes), we agree that he should not have ever been let out of local or federal custody prior to the shooting, and we agree that he should have been found guilty of a crime beyond possession of a firearm. I'm not pleased that this guy wasn't convicted of additional crimes although I am happy he did at least get felony possession of a firearm and will be deported (again, hopefully permanently) after serving time for that.

So I can only speak for myself, but IDK if your big line in the sand against "liberals" is really justified based on this. Let me tell you that if anyone on team blue is cheering for this guy and wants to see him walking free in the USA, fuck them.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thought out post, as usual, bro.  Not being a lawyer I have to keep my comments at the principal and idea level rather than technical charges.  And the idea I’m trying to express is this: in liberal cities with “gun violence”problems, we see a push for stricter gun control but not a comensurate push for stricter enforcement of existing statutes or prosecution of felons using guns in commission of crimes.  We can debate guns all day long, but when a multiple felon kills with a stolen LEO weapon and the same folks who want to ban collapsible stocks can’t support tossing his ass in jail forever..... well, I’m wasting my time talking because we can never agree.  And like it or not, lots of folks on team blue are glad he’s free.  I live in a blue state, it’s real.  So my line in the sand isn’t against liberals per se, it’s against hypocrites with hidden agendas.  It just so happens many are liberal.

BTW,  what makes you think “permanently deported”is an achievable thing?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New stage in the Border Crisis, mass waves from Central America allowed to move thru Mexico uncontested:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/04/01/mexico-allowing-direct-attack-u.s.-border/

Repeating the mantra:

- Fences / Walls in strategic locations (adjoining urban areas, Points of Entry and major roads coming from the border) with augmented CBP patrols.

- Military Patrols in rural locations with no ROE restrictions on engagement, arrest, detention & transfer to LE.

- Expedited legal proceedings and no release on their own recognizance for illegal border crossers.

- Huge fines for employment of illegal aliens ($50,000 per infraction), prosecution under RICO laws.  It is conspiracy, tax evasion and enterprise level crime.  Businesses under investigation will have privilege licenses suspended during investigation, under RICO the accused must prove first what assets are not / were not gained thru illicit activities.

- Bounties paid to local municipalities for arrest/detention of illegal aliens guilty of or arrested for felonies.  $10,000 per + flat rate reimbursement for days in detention will start draining the swamp quickly.  Use National Guard to expedite custody to ICE, this is DSCA not military members in the CONUS performing law enforcement.

- Reasonable period of reduced legal immigration with a merit point process and end to chain migration, reduce to allow assimilation then assess.

If the left can stomach watching sovereignty being asserted and the rule of law re-established, then the political climate will become benign enough that a serious negotiation on the status of illegal aliens that have some sympathetic cases (DACA, refugees, long time resident non-violent illegal aliens, etc...) can be had.  

I can't speak for everyone on the right but you can't work with someone you know is lying, grandstanding, breaking and bending the rules and is trying to subvert our democracy as it stands now.  Allow control to be asserted again and there is room for debate and negotiation leading to a compromise that all sides will find minimally acceptable, in other words a fair deal.  Keep down this path and we are on the road to ruin...

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

New stage in the Border Crisis, mass waves from Central America allowed to move thru Mexico uncontested:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/04/01/mexico-allowing-direct-attack-u.s.-border/

Repeating the mantra:

- Fences / Walls in strategic locations (adjoining urban areas, Points of Entry and major roads coming from the border) with augmented CBP patrols.

- Military Patrols in rural locations with no ROE restrictions on engagement, arrest, detention & transfer to LE.

- Expedited legal proceedings and no release on their own recognizance for illegal border crossers.

- Huge fines for employment of illegal aliens ($50,000 per infraction), prosecution under RICO laws.  It is conspiracy, tax evasion and enterprise level crime.  Businesses under investigation will have privilege licenses suspended during investigation, under RICO the accused must prove first what assets are not / were not gained thru illicit activities.

- Bounties paid to local municipalities for arrest/detention of illegal aliens guilty of or arrested for felonies.  $10,000 per + flat rate reimbursement for days in detention will start draining the swamp quickly.  Use National Guard to expedite custody to ICE, this is DSCA not military members in the CONUS performing law enforcement.

- Reasonable period of reduced legal immigration with a merit point process and end to chain migration, reduce to allow assimilation then assess.

If the left can stomach watching sovereignty being asserted and the rule of law re-established, then the political climate will become benign enough that a serious negotiation on the status of illegal aliens that have some sympathetic cases (DACA, refugees, long time resident non-violent illegal aliens, etc...) can be had.  

I can't speak for everyone on the right but you can't work with someone you know is lying, grandstanding, breaking and bending the rules and is trying to subvert our democracy as it stands now.  Allow control to be asserted again and there is room for debate and negotiation leading to a compromise that all sides will find minimally acceptable, in other words a fair deal.  Keep down this path and we are on the road to ruin...

1. AFAIK we already have fences/walls/rivers in every urban area. The unfenced areas tend to be incredibly rough, desolate terrain. If a fifty mile walk through the Chihuahuan Desert doesn't deter a border crossing, a small fence probably isn't going to, either.

2. What are military patrols going to accomplish that 20,000 sworn Border Patrol agents aren't doing already? Illegal border crossings are at a 50 year low as it is. Seems like a good way to degrade military readiness.

3. Expedited how? And, sure, that makes sense, but seems extremely expensive.

4. We sort of already have this with E-verify (varies state to state), but absent a massive increase in enforcement apparatus you aren't going to see much of a change. All E-verify did was ensure that illegal immigrants got a fake identity before going to work. It's going to take a rare US Attorney who wants to waste his time proving that an employer knew his employees weren't legal.

5. Seems expensive, and again, you're hurting military readiness to accomplish a law enforcement goal.

6. Just seems like nativism. We allowed about the same number of legal immigrants in last year as we did in 1907, when the population was less than a third what it is now. And somehow we managed to assimilate them. Reducing legal immigration is just about the one surefire way to increase illegal immigration.

Basically, most of the things you mentioned might reduce illegal immigration somewhat, but at a huge cost. What's the point? Illegal immigrants only come here because people want to hire them. If you want drastically more expensive housing and food, and pay for it with higher taxes to boot, go for it, I guess.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed @Stoker. Besides, the main vector for illegal immigration is overstaying of visas via airline travel, not foot traffic. You want to curb the so-called problem, address it via punishing the US employers who break immigration/labor law (generally socially conservative voting block too, the hypocrites). Now, what I would like to see on the constitutional side is a repeal of the jus soli statute behind section 1 of the 14A. It made sense in 1868, but it's been wholly subverted in its spirit of intent. I'm fully in support of the jus sanguinis concept, but the jus soli interpretation has got to go. As someone who lives in the border, I can tell you with good % confidence that such an amendment to the 14A would do more for illegal immigration than the ICE gestapo, perennially-fearful-white-nativist appeasing antics will ever accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't give 2 shits if Trump builds the wall. The Dems call him racist if he does, and they call him weak (and his supporters gullible) if he doesn't... His tough stance on immigration alone has made the number of attempted illegal crossing plummet. ICE also seems happy that they aren't being thrown under the bus every time they attempt to do their job and enforce the law.  And you can tell its pissing off the hardliner lefties because every day I have to read a story about how every visa over stayer that is getting kicked out is a Nobel peace prize candidate who does 100 hours of community service a week with 5 kids who are getting into ivy league schools, and who would probably cure cancer and eliminate world hunger before bringing peace to the middle east if it wasn't for the fact that now their family is being broken up because that pesky visa has just barely expired 20 years ago.

Edited by tk1313
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not even close to a lawyer, but would using the military to aid in border security violate the Posse Comitatus Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not even close to a lawyer, but would using the military to aid in border security violate the Posse Comitatus Act?


No, it’s already being done daily.

Using the military in a law enforcement capacity to arrest and detain would be an issue, but using them to provide assets and manpower in an assisting fashion under understood memorandums of cooperation is permitted.

We’ve got guard units down their routinely providing support mostly in the form of things like UAS.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2018 at 10:39 PM, Stoker said:

1. AFAIK we already have fences/walls/rivers in every urban area. The unfenced areas tend to be incredibly rough, desolate terrain. If a fifty mile walk through the Chihuahuan Desert doesn't deter a border crossing, a small fence probably isn't going to, either.

2. What are military patrols going to accomplish that 20,000 sworn Border Patrol agents aren't doing already? Illegal border crossings are at a 50 year low as it is. Seems like a good way to degrade military readiness.

3. Expedited how? And, sure, that makes sense, but seems extremely expensive.

4. We sort of already have this with E-verify (varies state to state), but absent a massive increase in enforcement apparatus you aren't going to see much of a change. All E-verify did was ensure that illegal immigrants got a fake identity before going to work. It's going to take a rare US Attorney who wants to waste his time proving that an employer knew his employees weren't legal.

5. Seems expensive, and again, you're hurting military readiness to accomplish a law enforcement goal.

6. Just seems like nativism. We allowed about the same number of legal immigrants in last year as we did in 1907, when the population was less than a third what it is now. And somehow we managed to assimilate them. Reducing legal immigration is just about the one surefire way to increase illegal immigration.

Basically, most of the things you mentioned might reduce illegal immigration somewhat, but at a huge cost. What's the point? Illegal immigrants only come here because people want to hire them. If you want drastically more expensive housing and food, and pay for it with higher taxes to boot, go for it, I guess.

1. Not sure if all adjoining urban areas are fenced, if not then they should be to the standard of the San Diego Fence & Security System.  Pushing them into rough terrain may not stop all but you don't have to score 100% on a test to have a good score / passing grade.  Pushing illegals crossers into open desert / rough terrain will deter, drive back some and impede those that attempt.  Aggressive patrols that apprehend and assist will get the majority of attempts, some will slip thru but it will turn into a manageable trickle.

2.  Military Patrols will add more coverage (boots, air and electronic surveillance), deter TNCOs with some military equivalent capabilities and equipment and use our military to actually defend in daily operations our borders, not someone else's.  If anything, it increases military readiness as we will daily perform missions to ensure our sovereignty and security.  Our military exists to not just deter aggression and win conflicts abroad but primarily at home, just because we have not had to do this using military forces in a while doesn't mean we should not now, it is that bad in some places on the SW border.

3.  Immediate return to country of origin or processing station to relieve pressure on local detention facilities, could be expensive but so are F-35s, which one on a daily basis would do more to maintain sovereignty, deter and remove threats to the USA?  

4.  No argument that E-Verify needs investment and effort to implement but I reject the argument that criminal illegal aliens (committing ID theft and fraud) trying to fool this system and that sometimes they will be successful in their criminal activity is a reason to give up.  Also, it is not a victimless crime, if I cheated on my taxes I doubt anyone on this forum we be ok with that, why is it ok for illegal aliens to commit a financial crime but not for citizens to?  US Attorneys may not want to but they work for the US Attorney General and if he makes it a priority with the intention to make some examples, it will have a deterrent effect.  Give someone a 10 year sentence with the news widely broadcast in multiple languages and in foreign press, word will get around the US is not screwing around anymore.

5.  Disagree.  This is military readiness and our primary mission to secure the homeland, we do it in a variety of ways and this is one of them.

6. Not nativism, just sovereignty.  I keep coming back to that concept as it is the basis of freedom actually, we control our lands, laws and destiny not others.  If we can't or won't we are not a free nation anymore but just Marty McFly to the Biffs of the world doing their homework.  It is different than 1907 for several reasons:

- The magnet of the welfare state.

- The culture of 1907 did not tolerate the divisiveness of grievance culture, the antagonization of identity politics and the false accusations of racial & ethnic bigotry towards immigrants as they are legally being allowed and supported in immigration to the USA.  

- The pernicious and subversive actions of somewhat hostile foreign governments in exporting populations to the USA, encouraging non-assimilation but political activism for benefit of their mother country, essentially setting up a remittance and advocacy colony in our nation that will divide and destroy our politics for years to come.  

- The immigrants of 1907 were closely culturally aligned with the existing native population, ergo it was possible (although not easy) to assimilate relatively large numbers of them in a reasonable time.  You can assimilate people from very, very different cultures but only in far smaller numbers and over a longer period of time versus people that are culturally similar that will more readily fit in.  This is not racism it is just realism.

I think you overestimate the benefits that are touted and I think are false for tolerating a class of people who work for subsistence wages, in aggregate it is a wash at best and likely a minor net loss when you factor the amount of social services they consume as they make little money and you underestimate the net social and cultural cost of having an unstable poor population that are used and abused by wealthier native peoples for financial gain.  Besides, what does that say about a nation that tolerates that?  There is no moral argument persuasive to me that thinks it is ok, moral, good or acceptable to allow worker exploitation because it provides my nation with cheaper goods/services while simultaneously decreasing the wage bargaining power of the lower & working classes of my own nation.  It is immoral.

The cost I argue is too high to pay, it immorally exploits the illegal immigrants, it exploits the poor and working class of this nation, it allows the corrupt and apathetic ruling classes of immigrant exporting nations to not address the systemic problems with their nations, cultures and economies by exporting the people that eventually would get sick and tired of being sick and tired and it leads to the erosion of our nation. 

20 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

Agreed @Stoker. Besides, the main vector for illegal immigration is overstaying of visas via airline travel, not foot traffic. You want to curb the so-called problem, address it via punishing the US employers who break immigration/labor law (generally socially conservative voting block too, the hypocrites). Now, what I would like to see on the constitutional side is a repeal of the jus soli statute behind section 1 of the 14A. It made sense in 1868, but it's been wholly subverted in its spirit of intent. I'm fully in support of the jus sanguinis concept, but the jus soli interpretation has got to go. As someone who lives in the border, I can tell you with good % confidence that such an amendment to the 14A would do more for illegal immigration than the ICE gestapo, perennially-fearful-white-nativist appeasing antics will ever accomplish.

It's an all of the above situation, illegal crossers at the border and visa overstayers are the problem

Agree with you 100% on the rejection of jus soli citizenship, it is without need nor rationale in the modern era.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's just a matter of viewing how big the "problem" is. To me, people breaking the law to sell Americans something they want (cheap, dependable labor) isn't something worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to fix. Especially when it's not clear that, even if we do spend that money, you'd be able to deter or eliminate illegal immigration. The incentives are just too strong to stop. People illegally crossing the Mexican border already stand a good chance of being raped, murdered, or left for dead in an inhospitable desert. I don't know what more of a deterrent the US can realistically put in place (unless you're talking minefields and machine guns ready to fire, which brings up uncomfortable questions like, "Are we the East Germans?"). It's nice of you to consider what you know is best for the illegal immigrants, in that you really don't want them exploited, but I think the individuals making those decisions are probably better equipped to make that decision for themselves, than you are.

I get the appeal of the law and order argument, but the question is then, if our borders were open now (as they historically were for the first 300-ish years of our existence on this continent), would you be arguing for them to be closed/restricted? If yes, then it's not really a law and order argument you're making, it's an anti-market one.

As for your points about this being different than 1907, the welfare state is not going to be harmed by young, productive people who have lots of kids coming in to the country. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographic challenges the current system faces. As for your other point... people should be excluded from the American dream because someone said mean things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stoker said:

I guess it's just a matter of viewing how big the "problem" is. To me, people breaking the law to sell Americans something they want (cheap, dependable labor) isn't something worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to fix. Especially when it's not clear that, even if we do spend that money, you'd be able to deter or eliminate illegal immigration. The incentives are just too strong to stop. People illegally crossing the Mexican border already stand a good chance of being raped, murdered, or left for dead in an inhospitable desert. I don't know what more of a deterrent the US can realistically put in place (unless you're talking minefields and machine guns ready to fire, which brings up uncomfortable questions like, "Are we the East Germans?"). It's nice of you to consider what you know is best for the illegal immigrants, in that you really don't want them exploited, but I think the individuals making those decisions are probably better equipped to make that decision for themselves, than you are.

I get the appeal of the law and order argument, but the question is then, if our borders were open now (as they historically were for the first 300-ish years of our existence on this continent), would you be arguing for them to be closed/restricted? If yes, then it's not really a law and order argument you're making, it's an anti-market one.

As for your points about this being different than 1907, the welfare state is not going to be harmed by young, productive people who have lots of kids coming in to the country. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographic challenges the current system faces. As for your other point... people should be excluded from the American dream because someone said mean things?

Is is ok to try to stop people from breaking the law to sell Americans things they want? 

Yes - reference illegal drugs, fake / counterfeit / stolen goods / child pornography / etc... and spending billions of dollars is one of the ways we keep an orderly law abiding society where your freedoms, property and personal protection are provided.

The law and order argument or a society with the rule of law is the real reason for our prosperity and hence the reason why everyone wants to come here or other countries with strong rule of law / low corruption, which is basically the opposite of their nations.  If you ignore the law and just shrug when it is broken very soon you will be just like the countries these people flee from.  The free market is great but it only exists when it has a place where rules are enforced and standards are universally applied.  Disregard it and we will inevitably decline to place where factions impose their will on others other than by the rule of law adopted and applied thru democratic means with boundaries to protect minority political views and ensure basic rights.

You assume that one these people will contribute more in taxes than they will receive in services, that is highly unlikely as they are likely to be in low wage occupations, have a higher chance due to the nature of their occupations to become disabled, use more services than the native population as they immigrate and establish themselves in the US and yes, if leaders, cultural and political, from countries where people come from say hostile things not only "mean" to the US but to Western Civilization we should think twice about allowing large numbers of them in.  It is naïve to an extreme to believe there is not some residual affinity for the mother country and it's culture / politics.  Not racist but realistic, societies particularly free & tolerant ones are fragile things in reality and can be damaged easily, we need to be very prudent and cautious with ours.

As to excluding people from around the world from the American Dream, not everyone can come here.  We have finite opportunities and finite ability to absorb and it is not me by myself to decide that but us as a nation thru our democratic process.   More jobs not less are going to become automated, we have enormous amounts of our own population we callously gave up on and a tight labor market is better for more people in a nation rather than a saturation of workers putting a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of employers.

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×