Border patrol concept


PDA






Rem700SD
October 18, 2006, 02:26 PM
As it stands right now, border patrol agents have to "round up" illegal aliens. This makes their job difficult. What if we made a zone, about 500yds wide along the US side of the border, where illegal immigration is a class A felony?
Would BP be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later?
How would this change the procedure? Would it help?

If you enjoyed reading about "Border patrol concept" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Axman
October 18, 2006, 03:46 PM
Too me, illegals coming in are like a slow invasion, a few at a time. Armies invade countries to take over, Mexican illegals are just doing it without the army factor.

SoCalShooter
October 18, 2006, 03:48 PM
War of attrition my friends, shooting them is not the solution.

plexreticle
October 18, 2006, 03:54 PM
Shooting someone for crossing the border? Wow, I hope not.

crazed_ss
October 18, 2006, 09:07 PM
The only way this would work if the BP recruited loonies from gun message boards. I doubt the average BP agent would want a job that entails shooting down men, women, and children in cold blood on a daily basis.

razorburn
October 18, 2006, 09:33 PM
Yes, that's what the border patrol needs. Some gun board crazies looking for an excuse to kill.

ilbob
October 18, 2006, 09:37 PM
I have suggested (mostly tongue in check) something similar, but I seriously doubt it will happen. It is tough to get any normal person to shoot someone who is unarmed and not an immediate threat. The kind of person who would actually do it is not the kind of person you want employed as a LEO.

Lone_Gunman
October 18, 2006, 09:57 PM
How would you tell a US Citizen from an illegal alien at 500 yards?

I don't think illegal border crossing should be worth the death penalty.

All we have to do is build a state-of-the-art wall like what Israel has built in certain areas. It would only cost about $1 million per mile, and be well worth the expense in long run. The current administration says this cost is too high, and it is not feasible to build. But this is a lie. The cost of one mile of interstate highway is between $10 and 20 million dollars, depending on whose stats you read. Our current defense budge is ofver $400 billion per year. There are about 2,000 miles on the Mexican border; we could build a wall for a mere $2 billion dollars, or about 0.5% of one year's defense budget.

Alex45ACP
October 18, 2006, 10:05 PM
They will still come in. The key is to end the government "wealth redistribution" schemes.

Lone_Gunman
October 18, 2006, 10:14 PM
They will still come in.

A few would still find a way to get in, but no where near the numbers we are seeing now.

Josh Aston
October 19, 2006, 12:09 AM
I agree with Alex. Even the hardest target is still penetrable, so rather than harden the target, make it less desireable.

cassandrasdaddy
October 19, 2006, 12:14 AM
"All we have to do is build a state-of-the-art wall like what Israel has built in certain areas. It would only cost about $1 million per mile, and be well worth the expense in long run. The current administration says this cost is too high, and it is not feasible to build. But this is a lie. The cost of one mile of interstate highway is between $10 and 20 million dollars, depending on whose stats you read. Our current defense budge is ofver $400 billion per year. There are about 2,000 miles on the Mexican border; we could build a wall for a mere $2 billion dollars, or about 0.5% of one year's defense budget."

interesting figure 1 mill a mile. ever look at the country you wanna wall off? and consider the road you need to bring in the material and equipment? your numbers nees a lil massage to get in the real world

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 12:39 AM
The $1 million dollar/mile is a number that I have seen quoted by several sources, and would build not only a physical wall, but also provide for some surveillance equipment.

Like it or not, Israel built a wall for $1million/mile. It can done, no matter how bad pro-illegal immigration people wish it couldn't be.

Even if cost $10 million/mile, it would still be worthwhile investment, and that would still only be $20 billion dollars, which is only 5% of ONE year's defense budget.

Birukun
October 19, 2006, 12:48 AM
Would BP be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later?

Isn't that what Mexico does on the southern border? Or was it only the natives in the mountains in the region that get shot.....

Bill in SD

lwaldron
October 19, 2006, 01:49 AM
"Even the hardest target is still penetrable, so rather than harden the target, make it less desireable."

Every illegal Mexican that enters this country makes it a less desireable place to live.

davec
October 19, 2006, 02:01 AM
We can call them the Waffen BP. Organize them into Einsatzgruppen, or Task Forces.

They can follow in the best traditions and the values of Liberal Democratic governance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/3SSTK.jpg

Geronimo45
October 19, 2006, 02:22 AM
It would reduce the number of illegals, increase the number of buzzards/vultures, and definitely tick off our pal Vincente Fox. NAFTA would blow a fuse, UN would go berserk.
What's more, you don't know who you're shooting. They may be just poor folks trying to come here for a better life. They may be drug runners.
It is way too bad a political decision to set things up that way - not to mention the ethics/moral dilemma of shooting people who may be refugees from a crooked country.

Glockfan.45
October 19, 2006, 02:33 AM
Wow REM700SD I hope that was a joke. What are we now E.Germany shooting people crossing a wall? You want to stop illegal imigration go after the employers. I say a $10k fine per illegal imigrant you are caught employing. So if you run a small construction crew of 20 people, and 10 are illegal you now have a $100,000 dollar fine. Naturally you still need to cut illegals off from public services, schools, and ER'S. When they have nothing to come here for they will leave. But I am disgusted at the idea of gunning people down who are only looking for a way out of a hell hole, run by a corrupt government.

aspen1964
October 19, 2006, 02:37 AM
shooting at illegals is too dumb an idea to suggest unless they are attacking(threatening) someone within our border...

that said...being poor and in search for work is NOT..NOT!!!! an excuse to break our laws...one more time, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! an excuse...a war refugee..I could be more understanding...about

..all of them know it is a violation of our laws, is dishonest in a VERY BIG WAY...but they are dishonest, which is why they do whatever they can to get away with it....unless Mexicans, Central & South Americans have a short-circuited conscience built in...I don't believe being a member of a certain ethnic group means you have diminshed conscience of right or wrong..so I don't excuse them for their actions...finally we DO allow immigrants to come to this country in an orderly fashion...but there are many waiting and only so much room in the US..so you wait your turn and do it according to the US laws..I do not want anyone outside this country who is not willing to honor this country's laws to come in..AT ALL...we have enough dishonesty and crime homegrown..we don't need to import any...PERIOD!!!!!!!

roscoe
October 19, 2006, 02:42 AM
People keep blaming the Mexicans. You are looking in the wrong direction. Punish the employers and this problem will dramatically decrease. It is simple economics: if there is demand, there will be supply. Always has been that way - just look at our success in the drug war.

You need to cut off demand, and for that you need someone with the guts to take on employers like big building contractors, corporate farmers, and WalMart.

omcf
October 19, 2006, 02:44 AM
Since we're being silly here: why not shoot every good ole' boy contractor that pulls his SUV up to the parking lot of the local Home Depot to get underpaid labor (illegal aliens), every 40-something hausfrau who hires a "Maria" to clean her house twice a month, every restraunt owner who has two illegal aliens washing all the dishes for 2$/hr, every great American farmer who hires what he knows are shady migrant laborers to pick his crops because he won't pay a living wage to get American Citizens to do it....Shooting only these people would stop the demand of the supply/demand equation and would take far less ammo, I assure you. Shooting either group would be illegal and morally reprehensible.

The people who attempt to cross the deserts and bandit zones already do face death trying to come here. We as a society need to have the will to enforce the laws that we already have on the books, the physical methods of doing so are not the issue. Giving human smugglers three years in prison, as opposed to 3 years of unsupervised probation would be a good start, IMHO

aspen1964
October 19, 2006, 02:46 AM
...the other side of the problem needs to be punished too...that I agree without reservation...but both sides know they are doing wrong...and don't care...WE NEED TO!

selector67
October 19, 2006, 05:01 AM
To save money building the wall, we could employ the illegals to help build it, it would be steady work for them.:D And the government saying they can't police the border, thats bull:cuss: Look at Area 51 in Nevada, the base the government say's does'nt exist, its part of a vast 4,687 square mile testing range, If you even step foot in there, the military is on you. Maybe the government should employ what they are using to protect that base from us civilian folk, and put it on the border, then we would not have to build a wall.:D

Liberal Gun Nut
October 19, 2006, 05:32 AM
Talking about or advocating shooting non-violent unarmed people is crazy-talk. We're all human, no matter which side of some imaginary line we're from.

BobTheTomato
October 19, 2006, 09:53 AM
Two prong approach:

Heavily fine people who hire them or send them to jail.

Detain pople who cross the border for a few months so they cant earn money then ship them back to the south of mexico

DesertShooter
October 19, 2006, 10:26 AM
Here's my idea: Every illegal alien that gets caught sneaking across the border is "fined", not in money, but in construction/labor time. First offenders get one month of doing manual labor on building THE wall! Second-time offenders get TWO months, etc.

To make it "fair", they would be paid for services at, say, $6 per hour. The illegals would have to WORK, however, to receive that pay, and AMERICAN construction workers and Border Patrol agents would monitor the work. The AMERICAN construction workers get paid much, much more, I'm sure, so we would save some money by having the illegals work-off their penalties while being paid. Remember, "They're doing jobs that Americans don't want to do!"

After THE wall is completed, install a one-way valve in it. The Border Patrol could start focusing upon inland immigration enforcement, pushing them through the "valve". The inland enforcement procedures would also involve prosecution of employers that "knowingly" hire illegal aliens.

Can you imagine the "Employees wanted" signs going up at "McD's", construction contractors offices, landscaping/gardening businesses, Chinese restaurants, etc.?

Bottom line: Once we have our nation stabilized, THEN start looking at some sort of "guest worker program"! Part of it would require those "guest" workers to undergo a medical exam. I'm tired of seeing how Tuberculosis, Polio and numerous STD's have increased drastically in the USA!

Muchas Gracias, Mexico.....but no thanks! And keep your drug cartels on YOUR side of the border! No mas aqui, hombre!

buzz_knox
October 19, 2006, 11:02 AM
Here's my idea: Every illegal alien that gets caught sneaking across the border is "fined", not in money, but in construction/labor time. First offenders get one month of doing manual labor on building THE wall! Second-time offenders get TWO months, etc.

That's not a bad idea, but you might want to increase the time to years rather than months, as appropriate for a felony. And you treat them like prison labor is currently treated: the money they earn goes into their room and board.

buzz_knox
October 19, 2006, 11:03 AM
Talking about or advocating shooting non-violent unarmed people is crazy-talk. We're all human, no matter which side of some imaginary line we're from.

Yet, it's not that far from what Mexico does to secure its southern borders. Mexico hates illegal immigrants unless they are going north to bring dollars into Mexico.

Autolycus
October 19, 2006, 12:01 PM
Just because it is illegal does not mean we have the right to shoot them. It is the same as if someone sets foot on your property and you have a NO SOLICITORS sign. Do you have the right to shoot them? I doubt anyone would say you do.

michaelbane
October 19, 2006, 12:42 PM
Just because it is illegal does not mean we have the right to shoot them. It is the same as if someone sets foot on your property and you have a NO SOLICITORS sign. Do you have the right to shoot them? I doubt anyone would say you do.

Several others have said that before in this post, and I agree. However, we must remember that landowners at the border have a real problem with illegal immigrants traveling across their property, discarding trash and in some cases threatening the landowners.

IMO, each border state should amend their property defense laws to explicitly recognize the right of landowners at the border to use some level of force to stop illegal immigrants from coming in.

aspen1964
October 19, 2006, 12:59 PM
I agree...the right to protect private property from illegal entry & theft should be expanded...

buzz_knox
October 19, 2006, 01:15 PM
Several others have said that before in this post, and I agree. However, we must remember that landowners at the border have a real problem with illegal immigrants traveling across their property, discarding trash and in some cases threatening the landowners.

Not just threatening. Haven't some been killed?

Jerry Morris
October 19, 2006, 01:29 PM
If Al Quiada is ever able to achieve their wet dream of nuking multiple U.S. cities, the border flow will reverse. Until then, cutting off revenue transfers back home to Mexico is about all we can do.

Excluding of course any individuals/groups who have a penchent for violently resisting BP interdiction. Shoot at a "cop", or other American and die, quickly. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Jerry

buzz_knox
October 19, 2006, 01:33 PM
Excluding of course any individuals/groups who have a penchent for violently resisting BP interdiction. Shoot at a "cop", or other American and die, quickly. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

It's worth noting that the official policy for when the Mexican Army crosses the border and fires on BP agents (as part of their effort to support "undocumented workers" and drug runners), the official policy is to "run away and tell someone what you saw."

Our only border policy is the Eddie the Eagle program for cops. Great, huh?

Jerry Morris
October 19, 2006, 02:32 PM
buzz_knox:

Sounds like it is time for BP ranks to take job actions. If these guys are Mexican Soldiers, dead bodies with Mex. Army weapons nearby ought to do the trick. If not Mex. Soldiers, you got perps and weapons to show the Mexicans. Of course, backed by fellow BP walking off the job in support of any BP wrongfully punished for killing in self defense.

Any BP who had not the cojones to support a fellow BP and went out there would be on his own, in my book.

It is what I would do for my co-workers, or in self defense. Time to show some Grit. Walk the Walk, or can the talk.

Jerry

buzz_knox
October 19, 2006, 02:44 PM
Sounds like it is time for BP ranks to take job actions. If these guys are Mexican Soldiers, dead bodies with Mex. Army weapons nearby ought to do the trick. If not Mex. Soldiers, you got perps and weapons to show the Mexicans. Of course, backed by fellow BP walking off the job in support of any BP wrongfully punished for killing in self defense.

Any BP who had not the cojones to support a fellow BP and went out there would be on his own, in my book.


It's no secret that these are Mexican Army regulars. They've been identified as such, driving Army vehicles and using Army weapons. The State Dept. has also acknowledged that these incursions have occurred. The problem is that not only is the BP outgunned (pistols and ARs versus multiple assailants with automatic weapons and, if memory serves, vehicle mounted weapons), but that the official orders are to run and not engage. So, it's not a case of cowardice but of following orders and taking the best option to not get killed.

We don't need fellow agents with ARs and Berettas showing up. We need Apaches with BP markings out there.

Jerry Morris
October 19, 2006, 02:59 PM
buzz_knox said:

We don't need fellow agents with ARs and Berettas showing up. We need Apaches with BP markings out there.

Then perhaps it is time to NOT go out there, until there are BP marked Apaches. Jobs are jobs. It may sound cavalier, but I am running into a simlar, though less threatening possible job action. Sometimes the Job is not worth it.

In the BP case, they have an obligation to call "We The People's" attention to a Threat.


Jerry

Joe Demko
October 19, 2006, 03:33 PM
I don't think there is anything more to say about this topic, other than its one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

You're new to the internet, are you?

johnsonrlp
October 19, 2006, 03:57 PM
I think we should allow them in, then rape them for social security and medicare money with no benifits unless they're born here. Jail and or deport any employer who pays under the table, as well as smugglers and serious criminals. If they're willing to pay taxes and stay out of trouble they're better than a lot of european americans.

And no we shouldn't shoot people for trying to flee the "Land of Mordidas".

Waitone
October 19, 2006, 05:09 PM
A wall is to expensive to build? Interstate construction goes for tens of million of dollars per mile. In urban area it can approach hundreds of millions per mile. We can easily build a wall. Will it work? Lessee here, it worked in Israel, Saudi Arabia is building one on the Iraqi border, Korea is split with one, China build one, ad nauseum.

The cheapest way to cut down on border crossers is to take those who economically benefit from employing illegal immigrants pay. I guarantee you if the Federales arrested Papa Tyson and made him do the Perp Walk and serve time the effect will be dramatic. Better yet make Papa Tyson pay all the costs for arrest, processing, housing, and deportation of anyone caught in his employ. He benefits by shifting his costs to me so he ought to bear all the costs of removing his illegal advantage. Solving the problem is not difficult. What is difficult is growing the legal and moral spine necessary to implement meaningful measures.

Joe Demko
October 19, 2006, 05:20 PM
Here's how we all can be happy: Give citizenship to every Mexicano/Mexicana who serves 6 years in our military fighting pointless, dumbass wars for Nimchimpsky. In fact, make it mandatory SOP for any mujados we happen to round up. The survivors get citizenship, the Bushistas get cannon fodder, and it makes coming here less desirable. Frankly, I just don't see a downside to it...

bthest86
October 19, 2006, 06:31 PM
Yes gun them down like dogs.

Our good friends in Red China already practice this.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7396

:barf:

Jerry Morris
October 19, 2006, 07:15 PM
Yes gun them down like dogs.

Nah, we should only gun down the violent ones. The rest of the criminals can work it off. No sense in not taking advantage of a free labor source. When their term is up, take them back to the border and send them packing. Recidivists get double terms and harder labor.

No one seems to get the fact, these are law breakers,,, UNDESIRABLES! Look at the convictions for violent felons and compare the percentage of wetbacks who make those crimes.

Jerry

cassandrasdaddy
October 19, 2006, 07:26 PM
" It can done, no matter how bad pro-illegal immigration people wish it couldn't be."

any idea how long the israeli border is versus our southern border? and i ask again ever look at the terrain? google earth doesn't count

Geronimo45
October 19, 2006, 07:28 PM
The idea to make 'em work for a while... sort of an indentured servant gimmick. Might work.
As for building a wall, the thing could be passed, all the funds allocated to it, presidential signature, governors' signature. How long would it take to be built?

Decades. Maybe a hundred years. Construction moves expensively and slowly.

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 07:28 PM
Our border is a lot longer of course, but the cost per mile is going to be about the same whether the wall is 100 miles or 2,000 miles. It would be a big project for sure. But one mile of wall would only cost about 1/10 the price of one mile of interstate highway, and we have many times more miles of interstate highway than border with with Mexico.

Ponygirl
October 19, 2006, 07:41 PM
If the government was really concerned about terrorism they would secure the borders.:rolleyes:

cassandrasdaddy
October 19, 2006, 07:52 PM
to hear about how the construction gurus are gonna overcome the terrain issue. in the real world you need to build a road and the wall the road first to get equip and material in. if you can bring it in at a mill i can sub you all the concrete work you want make us both billionaires quick

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 08:32 PM
Sorry, but I am not an engineer, so I must rely on what other people have said is logistically possible.

If we can build 40,000+ miles of Interstate Highway, I think we can handle a 2,000 mile border. When the Interstate system was built, it ran through miles and miles of difficult, isolated terrain also.

If you are really interested in finding out the details, you will turn up a lot of stuff easily with Google. If you are just asking rhetorical questions because you are opposed intellectually to a fence, then no amount of data is going to convince you.

This link has some basic info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm

Brass Fetcher
October 19, 2006, 09:38 PM
I think that the country that saved the world from real oppression in the 1940s-1990s, the US, could easily muster the will/skill to build a wall like that. Unless we don't have the will to do something like that again, in which case, no wall or Army can save us forever.

Joe Demko
October 19, 2006, 09:41 PM
I think that the country that saved the world from real oppression in the 1940s-1990s, the US, could easily muster the will/skill to build a wall like that.

Imagine how surprised they will probably be in several other nations to find out that the it was, apparently, the US that single-handedly saved the world from oppression.

Brass Fetcher
October 20, 2006, 01:04 AM
Joe Demko,

Which part of Europe are you from?

Joe Demko
October 20, 2006, 09:59 AM
JE223,
If you are either so jingoistic or so ignorant that you honestly believe the US single-handedly saved the world from oppression, then you and I have nothing to discuss. Perhaps you should try studying a little world history. When come back, bring pie.

buzz_knox
October 20, 2006, 10:21 AM
JE223,
If you are either so jingoistic or so ignorant that you honestly believe the US single-handedly saved the world from oppression, then you and I have nothing to discuss. Perhaps you should try studying a little world history. When come back, bring pie.


Perhaps you'd like to avoid the strawman arguments and deal with the statement. He didn't say the US single-handedly did it. But in terms of stiffening Europeans who often thought of appeasing the Sovs, and paying for a very large portion of their defense (as well as that of other nations), he's got a point. More so than you, since you had to modify the argument to win.

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 10:28 AM
Joe. Do you really believe that if the US was not there to provide the leadership, cash, and men to stand guard in Europe that the Soviets would not have taken over all of Europe? If you are that stupid, no one can help you.

Yes, those countries participated, but the reality is that none of them had the post war resources to do much more than put up a token fight. It would have been over in a couple weeks.

Joe Demko
October 20, 2006, 11:09 AM
It insults the memory of every soldier and partisan not from the US who served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. to claim that the US was singlehandedly responsible for victory. If you are referring to Cold War activities, we supported enough murderous scumbags, because they were "anticommunist", that we are actually responsible for a fair amount of oppression.
The US is the only remaining superpower. We played key roles in much of recent history. Our record is mixed but good enough that we needn't make outrageous claims.

Brass Fetcher
October 20, 2006, 03:00 PM
To get back to the crux of the thread, I think the international 'fallout' from establishing what amounts to a DMZ with free-fire zone with Mexico, would be too great, at least now-adays. Although I do wonder why any country would feel ashamed to enforce its borders - I doubt many other countries in the world would allow themselves to have a porous border like ours.

To the original poster (and anyone with military experience), for the sake of arguement, what would the logistical demands look like to deploy the Army or NG all along the border? What sort of troop density/crew served equipment would be required?

If you enjoyed reading about "Border patrol concept" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!