People like this...

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Jesus. This thread has gone to shit a little bit. People getting all judgey because DS figures there should be stronger deterrents for people entering the country illegally. Ie, harder boarders to smuggle bodies across. Do you weirdos really think there is something wrong with that?? I don't get it. I don't get anyone trying to defend people who are in a country illegally. Why the bleeding hearts for illegals? And why do people care if illegals are dumb enough to run off into the desert and die, for that matter?

my heart does not bleed for illegal immigrants...it bleeds for road blocks on american roads...not border crossings...no matter why you are hear you are afforded the protections of the constitution, which has due process limits. That applies to everyone here in the US...illegally or not...

Okay
..... I don't understand why the road blocks would bother anyone. I don't actually think anyone has adequately expressed why they are against simple road blocks where they ask if you're a citizen because they are trying to catch and (mainly) deter illegal immigrants in the area. I understand there is some grand principle involved.in this objection, but it still doesn't really make any sense in the face of reality.

PS - holy fucking shit to those photos DS posted. I didn't realize there were enough people doing that to make that big of a mess.

because when you give a little a lot gets taken. It starts with illegal immirgration road blocks. add that to stop and frisk in NYC simply for being on the street and you start to have problems. Would you be ok if every time you walked passed a cop they searched you? would that be ok? this is how it starts...they justify it as high crime areas...they believe they are going good, but in reality they set the stage for far worse grabs in the future...to me a right can't be violated just a little bit...there is a line, even if you cross it just a little right away you have still crossed it.

Effective deterrence is so hard to prove...but no one can convince me that effective deterrence is worth giving up rights...if people thought they were going to actually be caught no matter how they attempted to get into the country they wouldn't try...but since we catch so very few compared to all those that get through there is no deterrence no matter what we do...

This gets quoted a lot, but those willing to give up a little liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

JonnyPistachio

BinauralJam wrote:

Very well placed in a mostly face palm worthy thread.

BinauralJam

JonnyPistachio wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Very well placed in a mostly face palm worthy thread.

Thank You, this was my i've given up, obviously not going to change D.S. mind

DS1119

Drowned Out wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What yes or no question are you asking? I'll answer anything. I don't hide my opinions. And yes, I do think your posts in this thread are funny.

And what's wrong with defending a country's borders even if it's with guns. You don't want to be shot. Don't cross the border illegally. Pretty simple. I suggest you read the article I just posted.

Either you're fucking with me, or you're not reading my posts at all... I asked it 3 times, then quoted all 3 instances in a single post... I'm not typing it again
I'll take a look at your article.

I still don't see any question that you have asked that I haven't answered.

DS1119

mikepegg44 wrote:

because when you give a little a lot gets taken. It starts with illegal immirgration road blocks. add that to stop and frisk in NYC simply for being on the street and you start to have problems. Would you be ok if every time you walked passed a cop they searched you? would that be ok? this is how it starts...they justify it as high crime areas...they believe they are going good, but in reality they set the stage for far worse grabs in the future...to me a right can't be violated just a little bit...there is a line, even if you cross it just a little right away you have still crossed it.

Effective deterrence is so hard to prove...but no one can convince me that effective deterrence is worth giving up rights...if people thought they were going to actually be caught no matter how they attempted to get into the country they wouldn't try...but since we catch so very few compared to all those that get through there is no deterrence no matter what we do...

This gets quoted a lot, but those willing to give up a little liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

You make a lot of assumptions. You mention deterrence. Put guns along the border and that's one hell of a dterrent. All the methods that are being used are actually already being used. I haven't been frisked by cops in 20 years. I've been through a road block 4 or 5 times coming back from Canada. Big deal.

DS1119

Drowned Out wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Interesting tidbit just three days ago. I suggest people opposed to roadblocks in these areas give it a read.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... t-16768439

:fp: The CIA is gonna be pissed at the DEA again!

You do realize it's your country (and mine), creating the demand for these drugs, and there is someone on your side of the border paying for them, right?
You do realize that your country's one-sided funding of the drug war in Mexico has played a MAJOR role in the escalation of violence?
You do realize that that same funding and escalation of the drug war that resulted in drugs being routed away from traditional smuggling routes, and taken directly through your borders?
You do realize that NAFTA, then US industry outsourcing are major contributing precursors to the destruction of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors in the areas hardest hit by the drug war...?

It's not so much that you don't accept any sliver of culpability for the conditions in other countries...that's pretty much the norm...it's the lack of foresight in your solutions that gets to me. (well, lets be frank, the shoot-first mentality is flat out barbaric )

Drugs are illegal. So is drug smuggling. So are illegal weapons. So are illegal immigrants. Call my solution barbaric. Call it what you want. But I guarantee a wall gets put up with men with guns evry 500 yards that are trained to shoot. This bullshit stops.

mikepegg44

DS1119 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

because when you give a little a lot gets taken. It starts with illegal immirgration road blocks. add that to stop and frisk in NYC simply for being on the street and you start to have problems. Would you be ok if every time you walked passed a cop they searched you? would that be ok? this is how it starts...they justify it as high crime areas...they believe they are going good, but in reality they set the stage for far worse grabs in the future...to me a right can't be violated just a little bit...there is a line, even if you cross it just a little right away you have still crossed it.

Effective deterrence is so hard to prove...but no one can convince me that effective deterrence is worth giving up rights...if people thought they were going to actually be caught no matter how they attempted to get into the country they wouldn't try...but since we catch so very few compared to all those that get through there is no deterrence no matter what we do...

This gets quoted a lot, but those willing to give up a little liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

You make a lot of assumptions. You mention deterrence. Put guns along the border and that's one hell of a dterrent. All the methods that are being used are actually already being used. I haven't been frisked by cops in 20 years. I've been through a road block 4 or 5 times coming back from Canada. Big deal.

I know a fair amount about deterrence and the studies that have been done on it as a concept of crime prevention (criminology student for years). ultimately what works is a clearance rate above about 20-25%...meaning that if they caught one out of every 4 or 5 people trying to sneak across the border that might be a deterrent...The methods done to reach that point inside the border of the US should be guided by the constitution. That is all I am saying...protecting the border is one thing...doing it on a road that goes between California and Arizona that I was stopped at is another.

I don't assume things about the government and its grasp at power...it happens in small bits...you start with dui check points you move to stop and frisk...you start with allowing wire taps some times to allowing wire taps on everyone all the time (patriot act) you start by fighting terrorists over seas, you then declare the US a battle ground and give your army the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens...Power of government never stands still, they always want more...if you give them a little they will be back for the rest later.

That isn't an assumption, that is fact...

DS1119

mikepegg44 wrote:

I know a fair amount about deterrence and the studies that have been done on it as a concept of crime prevention (criminology student for years). ultimately what works is a clearance rate above about 20-25%...meaning that if they caught one out of every 4 or 5 people trying to sneak across the border that might be a deterrent...The methods done to reach that point inside the border of the US should be guided by the constitution. That is all I am saying...protecting the border is one thing...doing it on a road that goes between California and Arizona that I was stopped at is another.

I don't assume things about the government and its grasp at power...it happens in small bits...you start with dui check points you move to stop and frisk...you start with allowing wire taps some times to allowing wire taps on everyone all the time (patriot act) you start by fighting terrorists over seas, you then declare the US a battle ground and give your army the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens...Power of government never stands still, they always want more...if you give them a little they will be back for the rest later.

That isn't an assumption, that is fact...

This is quite funny to me actually. You talk like the US government is out to take over everyone's lives. Yes, everyone in the government sits in one big room and has meetings plotting how they take everyone's rights away.

I look at the roadblocks like this. Let's say you go to a hospital to have a simple cut stitched up. All of a sudden a highly contagious person comes into the same ER you are in. The offcials decide to quarantine the hospital and everyone inside it. You must now give up your freedom for the benefit of the whole to stop that virus. The southern border is infected with a shitload of viruses of illegal immigrants, illegal drug smugglers, illegal gun importers and having to stop at a checkpoint to answer a question or maybe show an ID (which they actually don't ask for) is for the benefit of the whole. It has nothing to do with you as an individual...it has everyhting to do with the nation as a whole.

mikepegg44

DS1119 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I know a fair amount about deterrence and the studies that have been done on it as a concept of crime prevention (criminology student for years). ultimately what works is a clearance rate above about 20-25%...meaning that if they caught one out of every 4 or 5 people trying to sneak across the border that might be a deterrent...The methods done to reach that point inside the border of the US should be guided by the constitution. That is all I am saying...protecting the border is one thing...doing it on a road that goes between California and Arizona that I was stopped at is another.

I don't assume things about the government and its grasp at power...it happens in small bits...you start with dui check points you move to stop and frisk...you start with allowing wire taps some times to allowing wire taps on everyone all the time (patriot act) you start by fighting terrorists over seas, you then declare the US a battle ground and give your army the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens...Power of government never stands still, they always want more...if you give them a little they will be back for the rest later.

That isn't an assumption, that is fact...

This is quite funny to me actually. You talk like the US government is out to take over everyone's lives. Yes, everyone in the government sits in one big room and has meetings plotting how they take everyone's rights away.

no it is actually much worse. That could be stopped, that is a simple good vs evil scenario...They do it in the name of what is best for people without giving thought to where the programs can lead to...Most programs are motivated by good intentions, but those programs and abilities will exist long after those running them now are gone...Do you mean to tell me that if someone like Nixon or worse yet, J. Edgar Hoover had the ability to legally, indefinitely detain ...ah forget it...i will simply end it with the road to hell is paved with good intentions
I don't believe anyone actively sits in a room and decides what rights to go after, I do believe they sit in the house of reps and the senate and bring up ideas and propose legislation that aims to combat serious problems without realizing that they are causing serious problems by passing the legislation. We don't need to give up the liberty of all individuals to solve the problems caused by a few...(the word few isn't intended to mean that illegal immigration doesn't cause problems)

DS1119

mikepegg44 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I know a fair amount about deterrence and the studies that have been done on it as a concept of crime prevention (criminology student for years). ultimately what works is a clearance rate above about 20-25%...meaning that if they caught one out of every 4 or 5 people trying to sneak across the border that might be a deterrent...The methods done to reach that point inside the border of the US should be guided by the constitution. That is all I am saying...protecting the border is one thing...doing it on a road that goes between California and Arizona that I was stopped at is another.

I don't assume things about the government and its grasp at power...it happens in small bits...you start with dui check points you move to stop and frisk...you start with allowing wire taps some times to allowing wire taps on everyone all the time (patriot act) you start by fighting terrorists over seas, you then declare the US a battle ground and give your army the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens...Power of government never stands still, they always want more...if you give them a little they will be back for the rest later.

That isn't an assumption, that is fact...

This is quite funny to me actually. You talk like the US government is out to take over everyone's lives. Yes, everyone in the government sits in one big room and has meetings plotting how they take everyone's rights away.

no it is actually much worse. That could be stopped, that is a simple good vs evil scenario...They do it in the name of what is best for people without giving thought to where the programs can lead to...Most programs are motivated by good intentions, but those programs and abilities will exist long after those running them now are gone...Do you mean to tell me that if someone like Nixon or worse yet, J. Edgar Hoover had the ability to legally, indefinitely detain ...ah forget it...i will simply end it with the road to hell is paved with good intentions
I don't believe anyone actively sits in a room and decides what rights to go after, I do believe they sit in the house of reps and the senate and bring up ideas and propose legislation that aims to combat serious problems without realizing that they are causing serious problems by passing the legislation. We don't need to give up the liberty of all individuals to solve the problems caused by a few...(the word few isn't intended to mean that illegal immigration doesn't cause problems)

Well I will say I'm happy the checkpoints exist and look forward to the US government hopefully becoming even more active and filtering these viruses out.

bindy123

DS my understanding is that your main...perhaps only...justification for supporting murdering the people illegally attempting to enter your country is Because it would work...it would stop them coming in.

I think the threat of being killed would stop a lot of illegal behaviour...thieves no longer go to court and get a slap on the wrist...straight to the firing squad...dont set up red light cameras...set up automatic machine guns that fire when someone runs a red light, that will stop them driving through red lights. I should have got your advice for parenting...when I busted my oldest smoking I should have put a bullet through his brain...that would stop my others from trying it...

Ridiculous, insane, stupid, fucking barbaric hey...well thats how I feel about what you are saying

Just because it would work doesnt make it right

DS1119

bindy123 wrote:

DS my understanding is that your main...perhaps only...justification for supporting murdering the people illegally attempting to enter your country is Because it would work...it would stop them coming in.

I think the threat of being killed would stop a lot of illegal behaviour...thieves no longer go to court and get a slap on the wrist...straight to the firing squad...dont set up red light cameras...set up automatic machine guns that fire when someone runs a red light, that will stop them driving through red lights. I should have got your advice for parenting...when I busted my oldest smoking I should have put a bullet through his brain...that would stop my others from trying it...

Ridiculous, insane, stupid, fucking barbaric hey...well thats how I feel about what you are saying

Just because it would work doesnt make it right

You are taking this to ridiculous proportions. You really are. I'm talking about keeping non legal immigrants, drug smugglers, gun smugglers, etc. fom entering the country. You're talking about setting up a police state. I never said that:? If a wall were put up with armed men standing on top...problem solved. It's pretty simple actually. It would be the people who tried to challenge that wall and not the men with the guns who would be wrong. The people trying to cross illegally are the criminals. The men on the wall are just defenders. No one gets shot if immigrants do things legally. Not a single soul. You wouldn't jump into shark infested waters would you? Illegals also wouldn't approach or try to climb the wall if they knew they would be shot. Problem solved.

BinauralJam

post deleted by admin

DS1119

quote deleted by admin


Funny but it's not just Mexicans I care about. It's all illegals. I don't care if they're Mexican, Italian, Russian, German, Brazilian...I don't care. Come here legally and I believe that's awesome and wonderful for this country. The more ideas...perspectives...cultures the better. It's the people that cross illegally I have an issue with in spite where they are coming from.

Sea

This thread is closed for review.