Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous


PDA






Desertdog
April 9, 2006, 11:39 AM
We, legal gun owners, do not need some nut making these statements on the radio or other mass media. This can hurt our cause very much.


Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4744652


A Phoenix talk show host who suggested killing border crossers may have intensified racial tensions in the state, two officials wrote in a letter sent Friday to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin.


Brian James, a fill-in talk show host with Phoenix AM radio station KFYI, suggested on the air last month that a solution to the immigration problem in Arizona would be to kill illegal immigrants as they cross the border.

"What we'll do is randomly pick one night every week where we will kill whoever crosses the border," James said in the March 8 broadcast. "Step over there and you die. You get to decide whether it's your lucky night or not. I think that would be more fun."

He said he would be "happy to sit there with my high-powered rifle and my night scope" and kill people as the cross the border. He also suggested that the National Guard shoot illegal immigrants and receive "$100 a head."

In a letter to Martin, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton called the remarks irresponsible and dangerous.

"At no time during this hour did Mr. James disavow violence or indicate he was joking," the letter said. "This type of threatening and inciting speech is dangerous and totally irresponsible for anyone, particularly a licensed body using public airways. We are deeply concerned that, given the intensifying conflict over immigration in Arizona, this speech may lead to violence. Tempers are short on both sides, and the situation is highly volatile."

Goddard and Charlton urged Martin to consider sanctions against KFYI for what they say was an abuse of public airwaves.

A spokesman with the FCC said he was not yet aware of the letter.

James did not return calls for comment by late Friday.

James has been a talk show host in Tampa and Salt Lake City. He is a fill-in host at KFYI and has been on air there twice, said Laurie Cantillo, program manager at the radio station.

Cantillo did not say whether she was worried about the FCC possibly launching an investigation.

"It's never happened to me," she said Friday. "But in this case, we're on solid ground. I would look forward to being able to tell KFYI's side of the story."

"At no time during this hour did Mr. James disavow violence or indicate he was joking," the letter said. "This type of threatening and inciting speech is dangerous and totally irresponsible for anyone, particularly a licensed body using public airways. We are deeply concerned that, given the intensifying conflict over immigration in Arizona, this speech may lead to violence. Tempers are short on both sides, and the situation is highly volatile."


Goddard and Charlton urged Martin to consider sanctions against KFYI for what they say was an abuse of public airwaves.

A spokesman with the FCC said he was not yet aware of the letter.

Cantillo denied that James's comments were dangerous or irresponsible.

"The comments were made in a satyrical manner and the listeners who heard the full broadcast understand that," she said. "We were having a serious discussion about the immigration issue and it was solution-driven."

Cantillo said callers had made other suggestions to the immigration problem, including erecting a wall along the border, amnesty and stationing National Guard troops along the border. She could not recall whether James had made other suggestions, but said James told listeners later in the March 8 show that he does not advocate shooting illegal immigrants.

"I did not receive a single listener complaint," Cantillo said. "We want to know why this has become an issue a month later."

However, the Arizona Interfaith Network denounced James' comments at a news conference held Monday at the state Capitol. They said his statements could incite violence.

Cantillo said the Interfaith Network is causing the danger.

"This group merely wants to drum up response for their pro-immigration march on Monday," she said. "They say they want calm, but the release of this is doing the opposite _ it's polarizing the community."

Immigrant rights activists are planning a massive march Monday afternoon on the streets of Phoenix.

If you enjoyed reading about "Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GoRon
April 9, 2006, 11:48 AM
This is very distressing, he may have instigated someone to actually do this.

My advise to those south of the border is to not cross illegally, for their own safety of course;) .

Erebus
April 9, 2006, 01:07 PM
I don't know. From reading the article it would appear he was saying it in a satirical manner and the listeners understood that. Someone with a cause to promote or an axe to grind is taking it out of context and using it to their advantage.

This happens all the time to talk radio hosts. Someone takes one sentence from a long discussion and makes something of it that it never was. I have listened to Jay Severin in Boston for years and it happens to him constantly. And he loves it cause it gets him tons of press when some left winger takes one phrase out of context and tries to discredit him for it. More people tune in to hear this outrageous talk show host and find out he's not at all the monster he is made out to be. I'll bet he gains listeners everytime they trash him.

neoncowboy
April 9, 2006, 01:29 PM
"What we'll do is randomly pick one night every week where we will kill whoever crosses the border,"

Right or wrong, my guess is that this would be an amazingly effective strategy.

c_yeager
April 9, 2006, 01:31 PM
Right or wrong, my guess is that this would be an amazingly effective strategy.


I doubt it, people die crossing the border every day, it hasnt stopped anyone yet.

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 01:39 PM
He does hit upon a free-market way to stop illegal immigration. This reminds of other great ideas that were hit upon in previous threads. Fine employers 50k per illegal, awarding half to the department of the arresting officer. Employers who cant pay have their business halted until they do pay. Every cop in the country would drop what they were doing and hunt for illegals.

I think that it is great that public figures are making calls for the people to do what the servants of the people will not. At the least, it will light a fire under the authorities to solve the problem in a way that is less unfavorable to them than massacres on the border. It is very good from the Solomnaic perspective of offering to tear the baby in half to force a compromise.

It wouldnt cost a lot of money to build a suppressed rifle with a 1st or 2nd gen night scope for border watching. With the inroads illegals have made into non-border states, you could just camp out at the edge of the Home Depot parking lot at 5am and fill your bag limit. But of course it is illegal, so there wouldnt be a bag limit.

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 02:29 PM
Advocating mass slaughter is reprehensible.

But no more reprehensible than the fusillade of lies emanating from Capitol Hill about this subject.

This is like the bully father who picks on his son for years and years and years and then people are amazed when the kid burns the house down around the old man. Who is kidding whom?

No one WANTS violence. Everyone wants a peaceful, orderly, fair society. That, however, implies a representative government that LISTENS to The People. Without that all bets are off. This Government wants nothing more than to see "the border" degenerate into violent civil anarchy the better to further their own nefarious political aims. Every day more and more Americans understand that and understand the circus that is Washington, D.C.

Lupinus
April 9, 2006, 02:56 PM
I doubt it, people die crossing the border every day, it hasnt stopped anyone yet.
Ah but there is a difference to doing something that gets people killed and the psycological effect of being hunted.

People die everyday driving cars, but how many take the time to drive around a bad street known for high jackings, murders, etc?

People die sky diving, but if everytime someone saw a sky diver of Pheonix they took a few shots at them how many people do you think would continue that dangerous as it is activity over Pheonix knowing they are being hunted?

Sure people already die doing it and that doesn't stop them but there is something very different about knowing that while you are doing it you are being hunted.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, if you put snipers on the border and gave them ammo food water and a license and willingness to kill anyoen crossing it you would have a border shut down very quickly between those who cross anyway being killed and those now to scared to do so.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 02:58 PM
Militia, like military, are often called upon to do what the servants of the community will not or can not... but its called by the government, not by talk show personalities. We are not the butchers to do their dirty work.

I dont think killing refugees is the answer, neither is ignoring the budget draining mess that will continue to be mexico. Its not a proper use of our weapons or time.
To detain them is a good idea mabye. Help the border guard round them up, help process the paperwork, and return these people to their homeland (if they happen to shoot at us, of course you cant help but to shoot back in self defense).

A longer term plan would be to sit the mexicans and their officials down to a table and have seriously long talk about what our relationship is supposed to be like. They cant be allowed to abuse people or dump them over the border while taking advantage of us. Those who join the US need to be made aware that they wont be setting up a mexico2 like the one they just escaped from.

At any rate, outright shooting trespassers is not the best of ideas if it can be avoided. Its more likely to start regular border skirmishes and revive racism than hold anyone back.

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 03:11 PM
As has been demonstrated repeatedly, words are not having any effect. The politicians make the right noises, but dont follow up with the action you would expect. The 86 bill was a great looking piece of legislation, but it was universally not enforced.

What we need is physical action on the ground. We need a wall of stone and a wall of men. Then we can start to have a rational discussion about what the policy should be because the other side wont be able to simply take any concessions we fail to make.

But this isnt happening because the government has no incentive to do anything. The whole conflict appears to them as a choice between the short term interests of employers and the interests of American citizens as a whole. They will naturally pick whoever is giving them money.

When citizens start taking up arms to fix the problem themselves, the government is forced to choose between stopping immigration (either through doing nothing or by proposing an alternative effective plan) or turning on its own citizens. I have no doubt that it will turn on its own citizens in the short term. But this will galvanize public opinion against government, and fixing the border problem will become unavoidable.

The only trick is that we need a large enough body of citizens to make the transition from "ok I guess it is sort of OK to watch the border without government permission" to "wow the government is screwing us, lets do the job ourselves." Unfortunately, this would represent something of a sea change in public thinking. If only a few people do it and are squashed, it might discourage others. If enough people start doing it and the government cant put a stop to it, it will quickly snowball out of control.

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 03:15 PM
A longer term plan would be to sit the mexicans and their officials down to a table and have seriously long talk about what our relationship is supposed to be like. They cant be allowed to abuse people or dump them over the border while taking advantage of us. Those who join the US need to be made aware that they wont be setting up a mexico2 like the one they just escaped from.

And which American politicos would be doing that? Not going to happen without a whole lot of political upheaval stateside.

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 03:20 PM
He does hit upon a free-market way to stop illegal immigration Murder is now a 'free-market' solution? :confused: You guys worry me..........

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 03:21 PM
The only trick is that we need a large enough body of citizens to make the transition from "ok I guess it is sort of OK to watch the border without government permission" to "wow the government is screwing us, lets do the job ourselves." Unfortunately, this would represent something of a sea change in public thinking. If only a few people do it and are squashed, it might discourage others. If enough people start doing it and the government cant put a stop to it, it will quickly snowball out of control.

You are right, and I believe this will happen. I don't think it will happen incrementally, building on the Minutemen per se, I think it will erupt all at once as the result of some event or some collective flash of insight. It might be a reaction to the MayDay hijinx or something similar.

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 03:22 PM
Murder is now a 'free-market' solution?

I think he meant free-lance, not free-market.

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 03:33 PM
It is a free-market solution because you are paying individuals to solve a problem rather than hiring a government official to do it for you. A good anaology is the way in which governments used to eliminate harmful species like wolves and coyotes. Pay 5 bucks a pelt and watch the pelts roll in.

I didnt say it was right but said that it did remind me of an earlier idea about paying the POLICE to round up illegals and essentially send the bill to the employer who broke the rules. It would be very easy to implement because it would shift the costs and the benefits and simply allow everyone to act in the way most beneficial to themselves.
-the employers stop hiring illegals because the penalty is too costly
-the illegals cant find work and stay out of the country
-the cops enforce the law because the payoff is too big to resist
-cost to the taxpayer is zero

The only better solution would be to erect a wall as well so that when Mexico collapses under the weight of a zero-growth economy and a quickly growing population, we dont have to deal with it.

TexasRifleman
April 9, 2006, 03:48 PM
Advocating mass slaughter is reprehensible.

Satire, however, is not reprehensible.

Satire: The use of humor,exaggeration, or ridicule to expose or criticize, particularly in the context of topical issues.

Good grief people, relax.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 04:11 PM
Not going to happen without a whole lot of political upheaval stateside.

True of alot of thigns. All you can do is pressure your friends and neighbors to vote wisely in the next few elections.
Its not exclusively the mexicans fault for continuing to risk the border crossing if we wont talk to their leaders or enforce our side of the fence.
In either case, shooting at refugees is not an answer.

The only better solution would be to erect a wall as well so that when Mexico collapses under the weight of a zero-growth economy and a quickly growing population, we dont have to deal with it.

We will have to deal with it no matter what. Unless something changes soon the only two ends to this will be:
1) The buyout/takeover/fall of mexico in part or in whole. Doing away with the government and replace it with something more responsable.
2) Everyone building an extension on their homes to try and collect rent from one the few million refugees that will blow a hole in any wall you try to build.

A border war is not the answer.
In the end these are still human beings with rights we have to respect.

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 04:15 PM
In the end these are still human beings with rights we have to respect. So are we. We have the right to keep our country secure from hordes of invaders. Who's 'respecting' our rights?

Destructo6
April 9, 2006, 04:16 PM
I doubt it, people die crossing the border every day, it hasnt stopped anyone yet.
Sure it has. In the week or so following 9/11, border crossing stopped, for the very reason that they though we might do just that.

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 04:34 PM
A border war is not the answer.
In the end these are still human beings with rights we have to respect.

Every civilization that has embraced this sort of attitude regarding invaders has very quickly ceased to exist.

crazed_ss
April 9, 2006, 04:37 PM
You guys are never gonna win over anyone by even joking about murdering people outright.

Anyway, I just got back from Tijuana. Had to wait in a line of at least 1000 people to get back into the US. The line was backed up into downtown Tijuana.. it consisted of springbreakers coming home, Mexican nationals, tourists from different countries visiting the US, etc.

In front of me was a group of 7 American kids coming back from Spring break. 5 of them were Hispanic, and 1 was white and the other black. The line was taking ridiculously long and I overheard their conversation.. It was in jest

Kid1 - "Dude this line sucks, we should just climb the fence like the illegals do.. We're citizens, what are they gonna do to us?"

Kid2 - "haha, man, you're crazy.. you might be past la migra, but the minutemen would get you"

Kid1 - "Yea.. and Ill just show them my ID and they cant do anything to me!.. Im Legal!"

Kid2 - "They dont care man.. you're brown.. they'll shoot you without even asking"

Later I hear one of the Hispanic kids say "I cant wait to get back to my F'in country.. I'm so tired of this place!"


What I gathered from their conversation is people honestly believe the Minutemen are out there to shoot Mexicans. It's just the vibe they give off.

Also, I hear a lot of talk on here about how Hispanics want to change the Southwest into Mexico.. the one kid's comment about "getting back to MY country" and being tired of Mexico tells me that not all Hispanics suscribe to La Raza and Aztlan extremism.

ken grant
April 9, 2006, 04:47 PM
For many years,the Border Patrol has been catching Illegals and taking them in.
They gave them food,let them take baths and gave them free Med Care.
Then they where taken back across the Border and turned loose. The next night most where right back again.

Now I understand,if they catch them,they give them the same treatment except not take them back across the Border.
They are given a ticket to appear and just let go.
WONDER HOW MANY SHOW UP FOR COURT?

CAnnoneer
April 9, 2006, 05:05 PM
The reality is that a government must apply violence in certain cases, to uphold its laws. If it fails to do so, the laws become meaningless, the confidence in it dissipates, and soon it is everyone for himself. What the idiots in WashDC do not understand is the kind of damage they are doing to the internal and external prestige of the US government and the far-reaching consequences thereof.

As regards snipers at the border, if any shooting is to be done, I'd rather have mercs do it for bounties. Using the NG or the army to do it will have horrendous consequences for morale, as well as mark a big turning point in our internal politics. There will certainly be enough cold-blooded mercs to do the job without blinking. Regrettable? Yes. The alternatives are worse.

Projecting force in the Middle East while we are shown to be incapable of defending our own borders makes us look like the greatest weaklings and dumbasses in history.

crazed_ss
April 9, 2006, 05:10 PM
As regards snipers at the border, if any shooting is to be done, I'd rather have mercs do it for bounties. Using the NG or the army to do it will have horrendous consequences for morale, as well as mark a big turning point in our internal politics. There will certainly be enough cold-blooded mercs to do the job without blinking. Regrettable? Yes. The alternatives are worse.

You're insane.

CAnnoneer
April 9, 2006, 05:28 PM
You're insane.

Realpolitik.

I can support harsh border control now, or find myself in the middle of a civil war in 20 years, or I can get macheted on the street by some drug-crazed aztlanist 10 years from now because I happen to be a gringo. I offer no apologies for defending myself and my interests within the bounds of the law.

When people refuse to follow laws, things degrade to Comrade Mao's approach (see my sig). I'd rather see to it that that does not happen. Border security is one of the many preventive requisites. If it does, well, I have guns and exercise with them regularly.

gunsmith
April 9, 2006, 05:38 PM
phill's wonderful show is full of material like that, he has his fake voice
say outrageous stuff then his real vioce to interview himself...really funny stuff.

beerslurpy
April 9, 2006, 06:11 PM
Crazed, I would have thought you would know better than to play the race card. This has nothing to do with hispanics. This has to do with poor, illiterate Mexican nationals.

One can hate a subgroup without hating all larger groups to which they might belony.

If I hate my ex-girlfriend, does that mean I hate all women?
If I hate cavaliers with wings and fart pipes, does this mean I hate all modded chevies?
If I hate trailer park dwellers who make meth in their bathtub, does this mean I hate all white people?

Your argument is stupid. This has NOTHING to do with hispanics beyond the immediate coincidence that the illegal aliens we are suffering from happen to be hispanic. People would be just as pissed if they happened to be irishmen or chinese or arabs.

The problem is their illiteracy, poverty and lack of useful skills, NOT the fact that they happen to speak spanish, eat beans and rice or drive lowered cars with gold wire rims.

Walt Rauch
April 9, 2006, 06:15 PM
If Mr. fill in radio talk show host goes out there himself, he won't live to see the sun rise.

shootinstudent
April 9, 2006, 06:21 PM
our argument is stupid. This has NOTHING to do with hispanics beyond the immediate coincidence that the illegal aliens we are suffering from happen to be hispanic. People would be just as pissed if they happened to be irishmen or chinese or arabs.

The problem is their illiteracy, poverty and lack of useful skills, NOT the fact that they happen to speak spanish, eat beans and rice or drive lowered cars with gold wire rims.

This most certainly does have to do with race.

If a "shoot illegals on sight" policy were enacted, I guarantee you the only people shot are going to be dark haired and with a year-round tan. No one is going to cruise san antonio shooting blondes and redheads on suspicion of illegal immigration.

Likewise, enforcement measures will disproportionately harrass people with brown skin and hair.

So yes, this has very much to do with race. If I were a hispanic-looking fellow, I'd be sleeping with one eye open in any place where there were "shoot illegals on sight" groups going around. Last I checked, rifle sights aren't capable of discerning citizenship papers in people's pockets.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 06:37 PM
Every civilization that has embraced this sort of attitude regarding invaders has very quickly ceased to exist.
If thats the case then America stopped being America a long time ago. Whats your point?

We have the right to keep our country secure from hordes of invaders.
Are they really invaders?

Maybe I'd agree if they came bearing weapons with the intention of killing people... but most of them are simply looking for jobs.
Theres simply no justification to shoot first.

They arnt doing much different than the europeans did a century ago. With the exception that they have a land route with an open border to bypass the ins.
Other nations experience this kinda thing all the time, and some of you would probly be the first to cry shame if a soldier in pakistan hosed down fleeing afghans with his rifle.

No matter how bad this gets (and expect its going to get pretty bad) I would like to think that modern rkba wont lead to a slaughter of migrant workers by civilians. Honestly I'd be more tempted to hunt the merc trying to snipe them than take part in such an insane policy.

Theres a right and a wrong way to do things. Shooting unarmed people in the open is simply wrong.

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 9, 2006, 06:40 PM
Does it bother anyone else that the government is trying to stifle a man's political expression? His political views may be downright idiotic, but doesn't he still have the right to express them freely?

mordechaianiliewicz
April 9, 2006, 06:46 PM
This is about fear. FEAR

Look, for the most part, this isn't racism, it is actually fear of the unknown. We don't know that the Southwest will become a Bosnia/Herzegovenia mess. We also don't know that the Hispanics will simply melt into society the way everyone else has.

As for racial issues, White Europeans melted together. Black Africans were kept outside. We don't know about Hispanic immigrants.

I've been to LA, Las Vegas, Tombstone, and driven around southern New Mexico. The Mintutemen have every reason to be out there. I wasn't directly at the border, but I saw illegals.

Normally I would chalk white people complaining about the Mexicans as racism/"They'll take our jobs" and have the high fence, wide gate approach, but there are a couple of things about our current immigration problems that don't apply to old Euro/African immigration.

Europeans and Africans came across an ocean/ Mexicans slip over a large land border.

Within a generation, the Africans and Europeans spoke English fluently. In the border towns, you're up to 3 generations of people that speak "Espanol solamente."

Most immigrants from Africa, Europe and Asia in our modern day have children who can speak English, if not their parents. Mexicans have children who often cannot.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is determined to get Mexican votes to back an agenda they couldn't get elsewise. And Republican corporate interests want the cheap labor at the cost of American citizens already here.

These things being said, shooting has to commence with Mexicans
doing it.

If illegals, and their supporters get violent, then we get violent. Until then, we stay calm. We have to let them get the first hit in. That might mean a rancher gets killed. It might mean a Minuteman (or more than one) gets killed.

But, sniping attacks on Illegals isn't good. We can only begin attack once we are attacked.

CAnoneer, if these "Aztlan" guys are as bad as you say, I think they'll start the fight. If this is really an "invading army" they'll get much more violent.

Civil War is no time soon in any event. I'm not saying I wouldn't have NVD scopes and some Sierra Matchking, I'm just saying, I wouldn't be using it, except on the range.... hopefully for now.

R.H. Lee
April 9, 2006, 06:48 PM
Does it bother anyone else that the government is trying to stifle a man's political expression? No. Advocacy of murder is not so-called 'protected speech'.

Lone_Gunman
April 9, 2006, 06:53 PM
Rather than keeping open the immigration threads where legitimate discussion was going on, we now have a two page thread that deals with the completely assinine idea of murdering people as they cross the border.

There are no rational points in this thread that contribute to the legitimate discussion of solving the immigration problem.

garyk/nm
April 9, 2006, 07:01 PM
Shootinstudent,
This most definitely does NOT have anything to do with race; neither Mexican nor hispanic are races. This has to do with criminals. Period.

Here's some food for thought: just read a report that ICE/ Border Patrol caught 1.2 million illegal border crossers last year. 1.2 million. What do you suppose their capture rate might be? 5%, 10%? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say 20%. So if they caught 1.2 million, 4.8 million got through. In one year. Still think we only have 11 or 20 million illegals here? Try 60-80 million on for size.
The government is giving us the 11 million figure because they can't deny that there are a large number of illegals here. If the true number were ever told, what do you think the public reaction might be? And they want to make these folks eligible to vote at some point in the future? Think 60-80 million votes won't influence some elections?

AF_INT1N0
April 9, 2006, 07:01 PM
Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous

But the Nation of Azatlan actively calling for the re-taking of Texas, New-Mexico, Arizona and California and kill all the white males older 16 is legitimate freedom of expression. Right. :barf: :barf:

AF_INT1N0
April 9, 2006, 07:11 PM
Double tap

roscoe
April 9, 2006, 07:28 PM
Dumbest.
Thread.
Ever.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 07:32 PM
There are no rational points in this thread that contribute to the legitimate discussion of solving the immigration problem.

What about balancing solutions against the problem?
Theres a limit to how far we can let ourselves go with "a modest proposal".

But the Nation of Azatlan actively calling for the re-taking of Texas,

Do you support them too?
Someone saying irresponsable things does not give you the right to suggest equally irresponsable things.

This guys right to free speech is crossing over the immigrants rights to due process. You cant presume them guilty through a riflescope.
His yammer is also likely to cross with my rights to a rifle. You know the anti-gun crowd would eat this kinda stuff up, giving dems pleanty of on the record reasoning for gun bans.

Travis Lee
April 9, 2006, 07:45 PM
Read these articles and tell me that this is not a hostile invasion, and that we are not already under attack.

Shots have been fired and they are already killing Americans.

Sounds like the war is already happening whether we are paying attention or not.




Mexican military incursions reported
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060117-121930-3169r.htm


Armed standoff along U.S. border
Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers had an armed standoff with nearly 30 U.S. law enforcement officials on the Rio Grande in Texas Monday afternoon, according to Texas police and the FBI.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3430815

Mexican army escorts
border drug-runners
Minutemen, U.S. officials say military directs illegals to avoid Arizona patrols
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43754


Snipers target border agents
http://washtimes.com/national/20050203-125017-1369r.htm

The shooting war on Mexican border
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14272

Border agents hold 3 after 2nd shooting
http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/30076.php



"WE HAVE GOT TO ELIMINATE THE GRINGOS"

March 30, 2006

The words above were spoken by Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party. His full comment was: "We have an aging white America ... They are dying ... We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd180.htm


--Travis--

shootinstudent
April 9, 2006, 07:53 PM
This most definitely does NOT have anything to do with race; neither Mexican nor hispanic are races. This has to do with criminals. Period.

You're really missing my point. Sure, maybe the identification of a problem does indeed have nothing to do with race.

But enforcement measures will most certainly have to do with race. Any nuts who decide to shoot illegals aren't going to shoot blondes, they're going to shoot dark-haired, dark-skinned people. So if you're an American of hispanic descent living near the border, how pleased are you going to be with the "shoot first, check citizenship later" crowd roaming your neighborhood?

Likewise, who is going to be asked to produce papers on a regular basis? A blue collar hispanic worker, or a guy with dusty blonde hair and blue eyes at the factory site?

Any enforcement action of the kind discussed on this thread is going to exacerbate racial tensions, and with good reason: they will target people based on race. That's something that hispanic Americans are rightly worried about.

Maxwell
April 9, 2006, 07:55 PM
Sounds like the war is already happening whether we are paying attention or not.

Where did I say you dont have the right to kill someone in defense of your life?
Theres a difference between shooting a mercenary paid by the drug lords, and sniping at a migrant worker whos just looking for a job.

garyk/nm
April 9, 2006, 08:03 PM
But enforcement measures will most certainly have to do with race. Any nuts who decide to shoot illegals aren't going to shoot blondes, they're going to shoot dark-haired, dark-skinned people.

Since the original premise was to shoot them as they cross the border, I don't see this as a problem. Not that I am advocating any such thing. No one was suggesting roving patrols inside the US.

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 9, 2006, 08:21 PM
Does it bother anyone else that the government is trying to stifle a man's political expression?
No. Advocacy of murder is not so-called 'protected speech'.Of course it is. There's a HUGE difference between discussing murder and committing murder. Last I checked, wishing someone was dead isn't a crime. Speculating about the outcome of killing someone isn't a crime either. You have to actually act upon your murderous desires in order to be guilty of a crime.

Is there any evidence that the radio dweeb actually expected somebody out there to start taking pot shots at illegals crossing the border? Is there any evidence that the radio dweeb wasn't simply speaking rhetorically or fantasizing out loud?

If someone does shoot an illegal, who bears the responsibility for it: the man behind the microphone or the man behind the trigger?

Thinking and speaking is NOT illegal. The government has no business penalizing someone over politically incorrect thoughts and words.

Shotgun12
April 9, 2006, 08:24 PM
Just wondering if someone could help answer a couple questions .... how much area adjacent to the "border", is considered Gov't property? In other words; how much of an "easement" is there, between any US citizen's property, and the actual borderline itself?
Also, as to the "usable" points - or areas of entry .... how large are these areas, that could be utilized as entry points along the border (in total miles)? I would assume that the entire length of the border isn't, or can't normally be used .... such as remote - isolated areas out in the desert, that are well away from nearby roads and cities, on either side.
Of the entire length of the border, I'm wondering just how much of it is actually "utilized", or is practical for crossing, and in need of constant, active patrol?

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 08:40 PM
Principle One: It's not enough to want to come here to work, you also have to subscribe to the fundamental values of this Republic. America is a nation, not a work camp.

Principle Two: Because you've gotten here, illegally, and work here, illegally, doesn't entitle you to squat. Since when does worktime equate to citizenship rights? This is a heresy perpetrated by political operatives like Kennedy, McCain, and Specter.

I want assurances that ANY immigrant wants to become Americanized. They can start by learning fluent English and mastering the political history of this nation (not the revisionist one now popularized in our indoctrination centers, aka public schools).

Anyone who doesn't recognize the pro-illegal immigration movement is one arm--perhaps the spearhead--of an international socialist movement needs to listen to various advocates for the cause. Start with Pacifica radio; you might learn something listening to the opinions of actual immigrants today, legal and illegal. That not ALL illegal immigrants are socialists-in-the-making isn't the point; the point is that many are and most are going to be enthusiastic welfare- and social welfare service-users. People on public assistance of one kind or another who have the vote are going to vote themselves more benefits. A new chunk of welfare-using voters will perpetuate and greatly expand the welfare system. That's inevitable. All of this is taking place within the context of increasingly rabid anti-white, anti-citizen, anti-U.S. government feelings. We are, to the "new immigrants," a virulently racist nation--but, oddly, still one they wish to join and exploit.

Headless Thompson Gunner
April 9, 2006, 08:49 PM
That not ALL illegal immigrants are socialists-in-the-making isn't the point; the point is that many are and most are going to be enthusiastic welfare- and social welfare service-users. People on public assistance of one kind or another who have the vote are going to vote themselves more benefits. A new chunk of welfare-using voters will perpetuate and greatly expand the welfare system. That's inevitable.The obvious solution is to deny these people voting rights and welfare benifits.

ARperson
April 9, 2006, 08:51 PM
I must be odd woman out here because I actually think the idea has merit. I see no difference in illegals attempting to enter illegally (most likely bent on criminal activity here in the States) and some individual perp attempting to invade my personal home. Just a difference of scales.

It's a slap in the face to all immigrants who enter legally and go through the entire process to let these criminals get away with illegal border crossings.

What do we have to lose or suffer in this country before we get smart about the risks of our current situation as it stands?

It's not pretty and it's not nice, but sometimes the answers to our problems require a little more intestinal fortitude than the average person has.

Of course, I do not think this is the ONLY answer. I think it has to go hand-in-hand with about a half dozen other responses, namely: 1) stop providing everything for free to these criminals (health care, schools, etc.); remove the enticement and the risks associated with illegal crossings become much more convincing to them; 2) immediately deport those who are caught; 3) tighten the existing border security to make it more difficult in every way to actually get across the border; 4) make American business pay for continuing to support illegals by providing jobs, etc.

The above is a minimum and not necessarily in that order, of course.

I'd like to end with a story I heard (no, I cannot confirm, heard it on the local conservative talk show; but I'd bet my entire next paycheck that it's true): American citizen marries illegal and has twins by him; her older daughter from a previous relationship is bleeding from the genitals when she comes homes from work; mom takes daughter to hospital; when she returns, dad--the illegal--is nowhere to be found and the twins are missing; because he was illegal and thus "undocumented," probably using a fake name and soc. number, there is no way to track him. So his molestation crime goes unpunished, he's moved on to a new place where he'll likely repeat that, he has 2 children who might suffer as well, and the effing bastard will probably never be caught.

I ask you: who's "rights" were being violated here? The young girl that was raped or the jackass who raped her?

longeyes
April 9, 2006, 08:55 PM
The obvious solution is to deny these people voting rights and welfare benifits.

We tried that in California. Prop. 187. They're trying it in Arizona, elsewhere. We have a lot of judges who believe if you're standing on U.S. territory you have a right to mulct the American taxpayer. I'll leave it to you to figure out what the solution to that might be.

Standing Wolf
April 9, 2006, 09:10 PM
Why don't we just maim them? Wouldn't that be more humane?

The nation is getting mighty cranked out of shape about the federal government's abject failure to secure the borders and kowtowing to Mexico's Fox. I sincerely hope we, the people get seriously cranked out of shape and take out our frustrations on the Republicrats and Democans this November.

shootinstudent
April 9, 2006, 09:21 PM
The nation is getting mighty cranked out of shape about the federal government's abject failure to secure the borders and kowtowing to Mexico's Fox. I sincerely hope we, the people get seriously cranked out of shape and take out our frustrations on the Republicrats and Democans this November.

Actually, I think most of the frustration is by a small but vocal minority of people who support the minutemen and all manner of tight border controls. Sure, they're bent out of shape...but they represent a picnic compared to the people who oppose them.

Pro-liberalized immigration people put a million protestors on the streets for weeks.

Anti-immigration people got a few hundred people to go to the desert, and also have some loudmouths on the radio.

The reason washington isn't doing anything is that it is listening, and it's hearing the message that the "build-a-wall or shoot the illegals" crowd is tiny compared to the "they're people who just want jobs, let's take a moderate approach" crowd.

Kodiaz
April 9, 2006, 09:30 PM
This is an extremely offensive joke.



Umm this is really offensive. This is humor in very poor taste. I say really outrageous things sometimes. You have been warned.

I was shooting the breeze with my cousin on Fri. and as I joke I told him what should be done is the gov. issue alien hunting licenses. Then after about five minutes of back and forth it got to this. And you could make selling the organs legal then you could take the body to some mobile hospital where you would get a bounty and some doctors could harvest the useful organs for sale.


Free market solution to illegal invasions across the border.

pax
April 9, 2006, 09:31 PM
Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!