Would Cruz/Palin Be An Unbeatable Ticket?

[Mdraf]

The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

I don't know anything about things out there.  What about the sheriff out there who is always in the news?  Is he actually doing anything helpful in stemming the flow of illegals?

The border sheriffs have been sued into submission by the feds

AZ Border Ranchers: “It’s Not Our Country Anymore,

[MediumTex]

I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

1. Would a home defense system for your house that "wasn't bad" be sufficient?

http://www.khou.com/news/The-high-cost- ... 38759.html
AUSTIN, Texas -- As Washington refuses to agree on a federal immigration policy, violent illegal immigrants from around the world are committing crimes in Texas. They are putting a strain on both the criminal justice system and the state budget...

Over the past year, Bradley has prosecuted two murders in Cedar Park involving illegal Hondurans. In one case, a man raped and murdered a nine-year-old girl. The second killed his wife.

2. Keep in mind that at least some terrorists aren't stupid and a not bad US southern border is an open invitation to smuggling whatever weapon into the US terrorists can obtain e.g. biological, dirty bomb, etc.

I just wanted to make it clear that illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. can be quite difficult.

That's all I was saying.

We could certainly make it more difficult.

[Coffee]

i don't know if it matters how difficult you make it, the Berlin wall was "difficult" to the point of being deadly and people still crossed it.
the ratio of difficulty to incentive is likely what really counts the most... moderately difficult to cross would be enough if there was little or no incentive to do so....

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border? 
You can't say, "It doesn't matter" and "People still crossed it."  Because matter of degrees does count.  It's the difference between a paper cut and losing an arm.

The Israelis built a wall.  It hasn't stopped all terrorism, but it has stopped about 90%.  I think that's worth it.  Especially before terrorists start walking across our southern border and blowing up our shopping malls.  If you hand me a solution to my problems that is 90% effective... I'll take it!

[Pointedstick]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

[Coffee]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

i don't know if it matters how difficult you make it, the Berlin wall was "difficult" to the point of being deadly and people still crossed it.
the ratio of difficulty to incentive is likely what really counts the most... moderately difficult to cross would be enough if there was little or no incentive to do so....

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall? How many people a day cross our border?
You can't say, "It doesn't matter" and "People still crossed it." Because matter of degrees does count. It's the difference between a paper cut and losing an arm.

The Israelis built a wall. It hasn't stopped all terrorism, but it has stopped about 90%. I think that's worth it. Especially before terrorists start walking across our southern border and blowing up our shopping malls. If you hand me a solution to my problems that is 90% effective... I'll take it!

i think the point is one of incentive more than degree... if there are easy ways to immigrate legally, and crossing the border illegally doesn't give you freedom, welfare, or anchor baby's, and there was no profit in drug smuggling to pay to invent new ways across... would the terrorists easily afford to pay what it would cost to beat the system of walls man power and technology to get in? and would the border patrol be better able to stop them having far less attempts to cross taking their attention away?
you wont ever get the 90%+ effective we want until the value of crossing drops and the difficulty rises at the same time, as long as the profitability of crossing (coyotes getting payed better to smuggle people in , and drug prices rising due to scarcity) keep jumping up with every foot of wall there will be a will and a means to defeat any security system you build.

[Pointedstick]

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

Do you really think that would get enough support? The idea of having the government kill people who are attempting to cross a line it's drawn doesn't make me feel real warm and fuzzy. It's a malum prohibitum crime, not malum in se, and as such, imposing the death penalty for it seems a bit harsh.

It feels like a very different thing from shooting a home invader, for example. The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

And I'm not saying I'm against border controls and enforcement. But making illegal immigration a capital offense is something I would have a hard time with.

[Coffee]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

No, there won't, because you make it economically unviable for them.  It's basic economics: if the price of hiring a coyote to get you across now costs $20k, but after you station soldiers along the border, the price to do it is $300k, you're going to see an immediate stop, because these peasants simply can't afford it.  Not to mention the risk to life and limb. 

As for drug smuggling: They'll probably find another way.  It will be more expensive.  That will increase the price of the drugs, which will cause demand to drop.  Or they'll find a new market.  Maybe China?

[Coffee]

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

Do you really think that would get enough support? The idea of having the government kill people who are attempting to cross a line it's drawn doesn't make me feel real warm and fuzzy. It's a malum prohibitum crime, not malum in se, and as such, imposing the death penalty for it seems a bit harsh.

It feels like a very different thing from shooting a home invader, for example. The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

And I'm not saying I'm against border controls and enforcement. But making illegal immigration a capital offense is something I would have a hard time with.

You're not making illegal immigration a capital offense.  You're defending your border.  Most countries in the world do it.  Even "The Switzerland of Latin America"... the country with no military (Costa Rica) has guys with rifles standing on their border.

[Pointedstick]

You're "defending your border" by "making illegal immigration a capital offense". Let's call a spade a spade if we're going to advocate it. Saying, "don't do X or we'll shoot you" is making it a capital offense.

[Benko]

The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

"but then you can charge them with those crimes"
After the murder and someone is dead?  Or after they smuggle in a terrorist weapon and many are dead?

How many countries on the planet allow as porous borders as we do?  WHy is that?

[Coffee]

You're "defending your border" by "making illegal immigration a capital offense". Let's call a spade a spade if we're going to advocate it. Saying, "don't do X or we'll shoot you" is making it a capital offense.

No, I don't feel that you're discriminating between a defensive action vs. after-action punishment for a crime.  It's the difference between a cop being able to shoot you (in the moment) for attacking him while he's sitting in his cop car vs. a judge later sentencing you for climbing into the back seat of a cop car, falling asleep, and then the cop having returned to find you in the car.

[Pointedstick]

No, I don't feel that you're discriminating between a defensive action vs. after-action punishment for a crime.  It's the difference between a cop being able to shoot you (in the moment) for attacking him while he's sitting in his cop car vs. a judge later sentencing you for climbing into the back seat of a cop car, falling asleep, and then the cop having returned to find you in the car.

Perhaps the problem is that I don't see the act of crossing a border without permission as an aggressive act akin to a robbery or a home invasion--or even trespassing. Trespassing requires a victim--the owner, whose right to privacy and enjoyment of the property are violated. But nations don't have owners. It's not clear who is actually victimized if, say, a Mexican crosses the border into federal land. Is every American wronged in a tiny tiny measure?

If you're saying that people who try to cross the border ought to be shot, but people found inside the country illegally later should be deported or jailed, that's still not satisfying to me because I don't see either of those actions as fundamentally wrong and deserving of a violent response.

Again I understand that in a world with governments and citizenship and welfare and public tax-funded services, immigration policies are important. But I see it as a practical matter owning to the government's inability to properly discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, not a moral matter.

[Coffee]

No, I don't feel that you're discriminating between a defensive action vs. after-action punishment for a crime.  It's the difference between a cop being able to shoot you (in the moment) for attacking him while he's sitting in his cop car vs. a judge later sentencing you for climbing into the back seat of a cop car, falling asleep, and then the cop having returned to find you in the car.

Perhaps the problem is that I don't see the act of crossing a border without permission as an aggressive act akin to a robbery or a home invasion--or even trespassing. Trespassing requires a victim--the owner, whose right to privacy and enjoyment of the property are violated. But nations don't have owners. It's not clear who is actually victimized if, say, a Mexican crosses the border into federal land. Is every American wronged in a tiny tiny measure?

If you're saying that people who try to cross the border ought to be shot, but people found inside the country illegally later should be deported or jailed, that's still not satisfying to me because I don't see either of those actions as fundamentally wrong and deserving of a violent response.

Again I understand that in a world with governments and citizenship and welfare and public tax-funded services, immigration policies are important. But I see it as a practical matter owning to the government's inability to properly discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, not a moral matter.

Okay-- look at it this way:  We American citizens own this country, just like Mexicans own Mexico and Costa Ricans own Costa Rica.  The concept of a Nation-State has been with us... at least since Napoleon. 

Ignore that concept to your own peril, but it exists and it's not going away.

We pay for this country with our tax dollars: We own it, and we pay for it's upkeep.  We also set up rules that say, "If you want to use and take enjoyment from what we pay for, then you have to play by our rules, wait in line and fill out the paper work, first.  You don't get to skip in front of others.  You don't get to decide what resources OF OURS... THAT WE PAY FOR... that you get to use. We decide that, because we paid for this place.  It is our house.  Go enjoy your own house.

If you still insist on coming here and using what I've paid for without my permission-- that's called theft. 

We American citizens spend our lives WORKING to pay for the infrastructure of this country.  We trade hours of our LIVES for money.  Money that goes to the government in the form of taxes that pays for our infrastructure and our way of life.

Now, you as an illegal alien CHOOSE to ignore our rules, skip in line and come here illegally and use our services?  Well, you're robbing me of my life.  (My hours>My money>My taxes).  So, you're coming here against my will and robbing me of a piece of my life. 

Now, if I sit in front of my house with a rifle and tell you, "Don't come into my house.  I will not allow you to rob me of my life anymore..." and you ignore my warnings and get shot because of it?  Who's to blame?  You are trying to rob me and I am stopping you.

[Pointedstick]

You with a rifle are defending your house. It's an individual matter. You bought or built the house. You've got the title. It's full of your own private stuff. But collective matters are sketchier, in my estimation. Should you be able to prevent people from other towns whose culture you don't like from entering your town? How about preventing Californians or Oregonians from entering your state (okay maybe Californians would be okay to stop--dirty Californicators! )? I mean, if I move to Nebraska, I start using their services immediately before I've paid a dime of taxes to them. For a time, aren't I a moocher just like a border-jumping Canadian Mexican? Should I be able to do this only because there's this huge umbrella organization of the federal government that both I and Nebraskans already pay taxes to? Would it be more immoral if states were 100% on the hook for their own spending and there was no federal aid to them?

In other words, I see a distinct moral difference between you shooting a person who breaks into your house that YOU own and you shooting a person who tries to enter your neighborhood/town/state/nation that is not owned by a YOU but by a WE. What if the majority of your neighbors/fellow citydwellers/state residents are okay with the people coming in? Does your opinion still matter? What if the people in your city say no but your state as a whole says yes? You see how this is more complicated than you saying, "I own this house, and you can't come in without my permission or else I'll shoot you." ?

[Coffee]

You with a rifle are defending your house. It's an individual matter. You bought or built the house. You've got the title. It's full of your own private stuff. But collective matters are sketchier, in my estimation. Should you be able to prevent people from other towns whose culture you don't like from entering your town? How about preventing Californians or Oregonians from entering your state (okay maybe Californians would be okay to stop--dirty Californicators! )? I mean, if I move to Nebraska, I start using their services immediately before I've paid a dime of taxes to them. For a time, aren't I a moocher just like a border-jumping Canadian Mexican? Should I be able to do this only because there's this huge umbrella organization of the federal government that both I and Nebraskans already pay taxes to? Would it be more immoral if states were 100% on the hook for their own spending and there was no federal aid to them?

In other words, I see a distinct moral difference between you shooting a person who breaks into your house that YOU own and you shooting a person who tries to enter your neighborhood/town/state/nation that is not owned by a YOU but by a WE. What if the majority of your neighbors/fellow citydwellers/state residents are okay with the people coming in? Does your opinion still matter? What if the people in your city say no but your state as a whole says yes? You see how this is more complicated than you saying, "I own this house, and you can't come in without my permission or else I'll shoot you." ?

No, it's not complicated.  You're just confused. 

- We (Nebraskans and Californians) are all paying into the kitty.  We're part of the same organization.  Until and unless we annex Mexico-- they are not.  They are not paying in, so they do not get a say in the matter. 

- Yes, there are State rights.  If I am legally allowed to carry a gun in Nevada, but not in California and I try to bring my gun into California-- Californians have a legal right to ask me to leave.  If I choose to break the law, I can be put in jail in California or put on a bus back to Nevada.

See, that wasn't so hard ... was it?

[Pointedstick]

Well I guess that all makes sense, when you put it like that. So is it your position that if there were no federal government and each of the states were its own independent entity, each one would have the right to regulate and/or prevent immigration from neighboring states countries? I guess that would make sense.

[Coffee]

Well I guess that all makes sense, when you put it like that. So is it your position that if there were no federal government and each of the states were its own independent entity, each one would have the right to regulate and/or prevent immigration from neighboring states countries? I guess that would make sense.

I think it boils down to: Do you believe in National Sovereignty or do you believe in Open Borders/One World Government?

[Pointedstick]

I think it boils down to: Do you believe in National Sovereignty or do you believe in Open Borders/One World Government?

The question I ponder is, "why stop at national sovereignty?" Why not state or city sovereignty? Or for that matter, neighborhood sovereignty? Why should nation-states be the political entities that are permitted to have guarded borders, but their political sub-units aren't? The lack of that sure causes its own problems as those darn Californians turn the whole west blue as they flee the mess they've made.

It seems like the only option for super-individual but sub-national guarded borders is private corporate ownership of large swathes of land, which is indeed what we're seeing with gated communities, and I think it ties in with the "corporate hegemony" world we're hurtling toward that's going to look a lot like the one in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. IMHO.

[Coffee]

I think we as a society have delegated those responsibilities to the Federal government because there is an economy of scale in having a nation of States with (mostly) similar ideals.  Despite Cable news, we really do have a lot more in common (US States) than we do, differences.