Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
longeyes
member
what Socrates can teach us - V.D. Hanson
Socrates on illegal immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | After Socrates was convicted by a court of questionable charges, his friends planned to break him out of his jail in Athens. But the philosopher refused to flee. Instead, he insisted that a citizen who lived in a consensual society should not pick and choose which laws he finds convenient to obey.
Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy. And so, as Plato tells us, the philosopher accepted the court's death sentence and drank the deadly hemlock.
Socrates' final lesson about the sanctity of the law is instructive now in our current debate over illegal immigration.
There are, of course, many objections to illegal immigration besides that it is against the law: Unlawful workers undermine the wages of our own citizen entry-level workers. Employers who depend on imported labor find common ground with ethnic chauvinists; they both exploit a large, vulnerable and unassimilated constituency. And security analysts warn us that it is insane to allow a 2,000-mile open border at a time when terrorist infiltrators are planning to kill us.
Yet few have criticized illegal immigration solely because millions have, with impunity, flouted the law — aliens, their employers and the officials who look the other way.
But Socrates would do just that, and also point to our hypocrisy.
The alien from Mexico chooses which American laws he finds convenient. He wants our border police to leave him alone — until he becomes lost in the desert or is attacked by robbers.
The employer expects trespassing laws to be enforced to keep vagrants off his premises, but then assumes that the same vigilant police will ignore the illegal status of his cheap labor force.
And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?
When thousands operate cars without state-mandated licenses and car insurance, why should other drivers bother to purchase them? If police pull over motorists and do not verify the legal status of aliens, why do they check for outstanding arrest warrants of citizens?
Ignoring the law is not only hypocritical and anarchical; it also creates cynicism. Recently, I listened to friends relate that the government had indicted some Indian immigrants on charges of arranging bogus marriages to gain citizenship. My friends half-jokingly wondered why the culprits hadn't simply flown to Mexico and tried to sneak across the border!
So, besides the money to be made on both sides of the border, why do we disregard the immigration laws?
Are the laws wrong and cruel, and even if they are, would it be moral to ignore them? The answers are no and no.
Employing illegal workers drives down the wages of the legal poor. Cutting ahead in the immigration line is unfair to immigrants who wait years to enter America legally. Mexico wants money from aliens to prop up its failures at home but cares little how such remittances burden poorer Mexican wage earners abroad. In other words, breaking the immigration law is not really civil disobedience but, typically, an expression of jaded self-interest by workers, employers and government officials.
Nevertheless, what distinguishes the U.S. from nations in the Middle East, Africa and, yes, Mexico is the sanctity of our legal system. The terrain of Mexico may be indistinguishable from the landscape across the border in the U.S. But when it comes to the law, there is a grand canyon between us.
Only on one side of the border is title to private property sacrosanct, are police held accountable and is banking conducted transparently. Public hiring in America is based on civil service law, and judges are autonomous. And the American public has a legal right to investigate and even sue its government. That maze of legality helps to explain everything from why the water is safer to drink in San Diego than in Tijuana to why a worker makes $12 an hour in Fresno but less than $1 in Oaxaca.
Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness.
That worry is why Socrates, 2,400 years ago, taught us that the deliberate violation of the rule of law would have been worse for ancient Athens even than losing its greatest philosopher.
Socrates on illegal immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | After Socrates was convicted by a court of questionable charges, his friends planned to break him out of his jail in Athens. But the philosopher refused to flee. Instead, he insisted that a citizen who lived in a consensual society should not pick and choose which laws he finds convenient to obey.
Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy. And so, as Plato tells us, the philosopher accepted the court's death sentence and drank the deadly hemlock.
Socrates' final lesson about the sanctity of the law is instructive now in our current debate over illegal immigration.
There are, of course, many objections to illegal immigration besides that it is against the law: Unlawful workers undermine the wages of our own citizen entry-level workers. Employers who depend on imported labor find common ground with ethnic chauvinists; they both exploit a large, vulnerable and unassimilated constituency. And security analysts warn us that it is insane to allow a 2,000-mile open border at a time when terrorist infiltrators are planning to kill us.
Yet few have criticized illegal immigration solely because millions have, with impunity, flouted the law — aliens, their employers and the officials who look the other way.
But Socrates would do just that, and also point to our hypocrisy.
The alien from Mexico chooses which American laws he finds convenient. He wants our border police to leave him alone — until he becomes lost in the desert or is attacked by robbers.
The employer expects trespassing laws to be enforced to keep vagrants off his premises, but then assumes that the same vigilant police will ignore the illegal status of his cheap labor force.
And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?
When thousands operate cars without state-mandated licenses and car insurance, why should other drivers bother to purchase them? If police pull over motorists and do not verify the legal status of aliens, why do they check for outstanding arrest warrants of citizens?
Ignoring the law is not only hypocritical and anarchical; it also creates cynicism. Recently, I listened to friends relate that the government had indicted some Indian immigrants on charges of arranging bogus marriages to gain citizenship. My friends half-jokingly wondered why the culprits hadn't simply flown to Mexico and tried to sneak across the border!
So, besides the money to be made on both sides of the border, why do we disregard the immigration laws?
Are the laws wrong and cruel, and even if they are, would it be moral to ignore them? The answers are no and no.
Employing illegal workers drives down the wages of the legal poor. Cutting ahead in the immigration line is unfair to immigrants who wait years to enter America legally. Mexico wants money from aliens to prop up its failures at home but cares little how such remittances burden poorer Mexican wage earners abroad. In other words, breaking the immigration law is not really civil disobedience but, typically, an expression of jaded self-interest by workers, employers and government officials.
Nevertheless, what distinguishes the U.S. from nations in the Middle East, Africa and, yes, Mexico is the sanctity of our legal system. The terrain of Mexico may be indistinguishable from the landscape across the border in the U.S. But when it comes to the law, there is a grand canyon between us.
Only on one side of the border is title to private property sacrosanct, are police held accountable and is banking conducted transparently. Public hiring in America is based on civil service law, and judges are autonomous. And the American public has a legal right to investigate and even sue its government. That maze of legality helps to explain everything from why the water is safer to drink in San Diego than in Tijuana to why a worker makes $12 an hour in Fresno but less than $1 in Oaxaca.
Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness.
That worry is why Socrates, 2,400 years ago, taught us that the deliberate violation of the rule of law would have been worse for ancient Athens even than losing its greatest philosopher.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Although I think Socrates should have bolted, that's neither here nor there.
Look, minutemen are weekend warriors essentially. They cannot do what is necessary to defend the borders. It's simple as that. The fedgov has troops, divisions, men who can be payed to watch a field of sand all day and all night.
The government exists largely to defend the country. Defend the United States. Why, I would ask aren't troops on the border rfn?!
The answer is wealthy business interests. Companies that love the free market until they have a bad quarter.
Oh, wow, American workers want to be payed enough money to feed their children, and (shock and awe) actually buy the goods or services they make!
Can't have that.
Let's import cheap labor which can be dumped to their home countries if they decide they want the benefits of a higher paycheck, or another break during the day.
We'll sell it to actual Americans as "These are the jobs you won't do" and leave out the whole "for a slave wage." part.
Oh, and anyone that says to me, "Well, you are talking about socialism."
I will point out, the government and the corporations forming alliances to prop each other is not laissez faire. Business begging the government not to enforce it's own laws, or tighten laws already there with a view to cutting the cost of labor isn't the free market either.
P.S.
Oh, sorry for the rant
Look, minutemen are weekend warriors essentially. They cannot do what is necessary to defend the borders. It's simple as that. The fedgov has troops, divisions, men who can be payed to watch a field of sand all day and all night.
The government exists largely to defend the country. Defend the United States. Why, I would ask aren't troops on the border rfn?!
The answer is wealthy business interests. Companies that love the free market until they have a bad quarter.
Oh, wow, American workers want to be payed enough money to feed their children, and (shock and awe) actually buy the goods or services they make!
Can't have that.
Let's import cheap labor which can be dumped to their home countries if they decide they want the benefits of a higher paycheck, or another break during the day.
We'll sell it to actual Americans as "These are the jobs you won't do" and leave out the whole "for a slave wage." part.
Oh, and anyone that says to me, "Well, you are talking about socialism."
I will point out, the government and the corporations forming alliances to prop each other is not laissez faire. Business begging the government not to enforce it's own laws, or tighten laws already there with a view to cutting the cost of labor isn't the free market either.
P.S.
Oh, sorry for the rant
denfoote
Member
Here!! Here!!!
longeyes
member
Good one, Biker.
Capitalism in America: No better friend, no worse enemy. It ain't what it used to be.
It's not hard to imagine a future America where the CEOs of trans-national corporations become an endangered species.
Capitalism in America: No better friend, no worse enemy. It ain't what it used to be.
It's not hard to imagine a future America where the CEOs of trans-national corporations become an endangered species.
joab
Member
I thought they were building fences in areas that illegals have access to.
Why would they build a fence to keep BP and landowners out?
Valkman
Member
It's on private property that's being overrun by illegals. Since it's was cut in 19 places that kind of rules out illegals - they only need to cut it once!
Destructo6
Member
They should have factored repairs into the expense of that border fence. It's going to be cut or damaged every day, if not multiple times per day. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't damaged earlier.
Saying that the fence being cut in multiple places rules out aliens is silly. An alien walking up to the fence will cut it wherever he encounters it, especially at night. He's not going to spend hours looking for a nice, existing hole. If you get 19 groups, you could easily have 19 cuts.
Saying that the fence being cut in multiple places rules out aliens is silly. An alien walking up to the fence will cut it wherever he encounters it, especially at night. He's not going to spend hours looking for a nice, existing hole. If you get 19 groups, you could easily have 19 cuts.
longeyes
member
Fences and walls have never been more than the first line of defense against assaults. Of course ramparts get breached. That's why you devise strategies to forcefully repel attackers and make the cost of invasion unpalatable. You don't temporarily detain people who scale your battlements, you eliminate them as a threat. What we are playing here is a child's game. When illegal immigration is viewed seriously and dealt with seriously, we will all know it.
Lambo
Member
For anyone interested the MM now have Internet Forum http://forum.minutemanhq.com/phpBB2/index.php
Sgt Stevo
Member
At least the MM are trying. I doubt the Border protrol cut the fence. Why? Is the Question.
The illegals can easily go around the fence. It is really wide open. When I was a kid, I got up on the northern Italy/commie yugo border.
the Yugo people would come into Italy to sell stuff at the flea markets. each one was checked in and out. They also had gun positions and lots of other stuff on both sides. It can be done.
The illegals can easily go around the fence. It is really wide open. When I was a kid, I got up on the northern Italy/commie yugo border.
the Yugo people would come into Italy to sell stuff at the flea markets. each one was checked in and out. They also had gun positions and lots of other stuff on both sides. It can be done.
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
"News reporters cut the Minutemen fence so they would have something to write home about.
"If you don't get a good story by two hours from deadline, make one up.""
The same could be theoretically said of the Minutemen themselves. Haven't heard hardly anything about them lately, until this.
It's tough to say what happened.
"If you don't get a good story by two hours from deadline, make one up.""
The same could be theoretically said of the Minutemen themselves. Haven't heard hardly anything about them lately, until this.
It's tough to say what happened.
Valkman
Member
Wow, if you say so. Of course you don't know it wasn't factored in since it isn't even done yet. They admitted (MM) they screwed up leaving the fence without cameras, vehicle barriers and the rest.
I guess you missed the part where the few that did it left bootprints "just like the Border Patrol wears". So unless those 19 groups all had the same boots on I'd say it wasn't so silly.
Last edited:
Desertdog
Member
And of course there was no investigations by any law enforcement office, I presume.
joab
Member
I did, could you post the link specifying the evidence against the BP
The Minutemen's vice president is blaming illegals.
The video showed no footprints around the cuts, seems like they would have if it added to the drama
I posted at #20, that I saw on the Fox News, Chris Cox, Minute man founder, who stated to the interviewer that the boot marks left around the fence were the same as those worn by the Border Patrol agents.
He also stated those who are aiding and abetting, came from our Side and that only BP agents and some ACLU types who are monitoring had access.
have a great day,
cavman
He also stated those who are aiding and abetting, came from our Side and that only BP agents and some ACLU types who are monitoring had access.
have a great day,
cavman
longeyes
member
If the BP's behind this, it will out; someone inside will spill the refried beans. And then we will be asking who Higher Up gave the orders.
Maybe it doesn't matter. I think most Americans who oppose illegal immigration already know that it's us versus the Feds on this issue and that our political leadership in D.C. has zero intention of doing anything constructive about this problem.
The border problem isn't at the border, it's on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Maybe it doesn't matter. I think most Americans who oppose illegal immigration already know that it's us versus the Feds on this issue and that our political leadership in D.C. has zero intention of doing anything constructive about this problem.
The border problem isn't at the border, it's on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Desertdog
Member
Electrify, electrify, and electrify. 
Edit: Use the electric fence apparatous, not the line voltage.
Edit: Use the electric fence apparatous, not the line voltage.
joab
Member
Does BP issue footwear for their agents?
If so are these uncommon type shoes?
With all that wind blowing across sand could there really be discernable tread prints?
Why would the other news outlet, the one that actually filmed the cut fence, not show these one of a kind prints?
Is there some dissension in the ranks when the vice president blames illegals but some guy blames BP?
Is there a link to some type of credible evidence that these were BP specific boot prints, or is this merely speculation from someone surprised that four strands of wire will not keep anything but cows on their side of the fence?
If so are these uncommon type shoes?
With all that wind blowing across sand could there really be discernable tread prints?
Why would the other news outlet, the one that actually filmed the cut fence, not show these one of a kind prints?
Is there some dissension in the ranks when the vice president blames illegals but some guy blames BP?
Is there a link to some type of credible evidence that these were BP specific boot prints, or is this merely speculation from someone surprised that four strands of wire will not keep anything but cows on their side of the fence?
wheelgunslinger
Member
The fence is an expression of their desire to keep people out of that side of the fence.
The destruction of the fence is a statement of lack of respect for the rights of the people who put up the fence.
The fence, as ridiculous as it may be, add tangible malice and disregard to the actions of border crosser or whomever cut it.
So, the minutemen have an enemy. That's not exactly news.
But, I think that a lot of people are not getting that the minutemen aren't a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who want to snipe every brown person they see.
The fence is being put up to avoid loss of life, ill will, and maybe even a street level war between mexicans and Americans. And, when seen from that point of view, it becomes dumbfounding that someone would go and cut it, unless they were looking for a fight- which is the subtext of the erection of the fence. It's, almost literally, a line drawn in the sand.
But, borders are battle lines. They have always been thus. And, anyone who violates or disregards a nation's borders, or their attempt to secure it, can't say they don't have a long history on which to research the repurcussions of that action.
The destruction of the fence is a statement of lack of respect for the rights of the people who put up the fence.
The fence, as ridiculous as it may be, add tangible malice and disregard to the actions of border crosser or whomever cut it.
So, the minutemen have an enemy. That's not exactly news.
But, I think that a lot of people are not getting that the minutemen aren't a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who want to snipe every brown person they see.
The fence is being put up to avoid loss of life, ill will, and maybe even a street level war between mexicans and Americans. And, when seen from that point of view, it becomes dumbfounding that someone would go and cut it, unless they were looking for a fight- which is the subtext of the erection of the fence. It's, almost literally, a line drawn in the sand.
But, borders are battle lines. They have always been thus. And, anyone who violates or disregards a nation's borders, or their attempt to secure it, can't say they don't have a long history on which to research the repurcussions of that action.
joab
Member
And whenever you draw that line in the sand or dare the someone to knock that chip off your shoulder you'd better be prepared for the line to be crossed or the chip to be knocked off.
The fence was put up as a warning and it was cut as a response to that warning
Next step, the Triple Dog Dare
- Status