What should be done about illegal immigration?

No, it's a simple matter of human decency. You don't shoot people for trespassing, shoplifting, or even drug dealing. Stop arguing for a second and think.
You support due process for suspected terrorists, but not trespassers?
You oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers, but you support the death penalty for trespassers... without the benefit of due process? You can't be serious.

Once a man has been convicted of a drug offense; you advocate the border patrol playing the roll of judge, jury and executioner? For trespassing?

I don't believe you believe that, CI... Think it through.

I think you meant "role", Bill.

Yup.

The spelling police are here.

One consideration on treating people from Mexico is how we want to be treated in Mexico. It would be hard to complain about the actions of Mexican officers against American tourists when our officers are as bad or worse.

OH! If they did the American tourists would stop going to Mexico. That would be a fair trade if the illegals would follow suite. There are plenty of other places to go and things to see.

Oh, we should mistreat Mexicans so that they won't immigrate here.

Tourists and business people won't stop going to Mexico, and it would be nice if they were treated well by the police, et al.

I don't think there is any problem with Americans vacationing in Mexico--I do that fairly frequently--or with Mexicans vacationing in America--I know quite a few folks who do that too.

However, we treat illegals in this country quite a bit better than illegals are treated in Mexico. If I sneaked into Mexico, presumed to go to work there, demanded that I receive any available social services, required that my children be educated for free--and be taught in English at that--and showed up at the hospital requesting free medical care, and then marched demanding citizen rights. . . . .hmmm......how many years do you think it would take for me to complete my prison sentence?

Fox, I wouldn't dispute that. Moreover, I favor kicking out illegals. However, we should never tolerate our officers acting like the Gestapo. Eventually, they will come for you.

I am on the record--just yesterday--as saying that we should not tolerate police brutality and we must demand that those we entrust to enforce the laws and provide our security follow the law as much as is humanly reasonable to do.

Having friends and relatives in the military and in various departments of law enforcement, however, I also know how tough it is for them to do their job when they are second guessed every step of the way when they do it, when their hands are tied, and when the rules keep changing more and more to favor the law breakers and disadvantage the law enforcers.

But in the case of the border officers, it wasn't a close decision. They acted like complete criminals.

Fox, Your last post makes a whole lot of sense to me too, but I'm afraid we're in the minority. I don't believe in "illegal violence" against anyone, but that's quite different depending on the particular situation. Nothing is black and white like most seem to believe.

Most police departments try to do their best under difficult circumstances; I'm just not in a position to second-guess why any officer made the decision they did when they did. I've never had the experience nor exposure of what they've gone through. That goes ditto for soldiers in the line of fire.

Do you know that? Were you there? Or is that what you have chosen to believe?

I wasn't there either and have to rely on what I read and hear to form an opinion. I have heard both sides of this argument and, based on what I have heard, the border patrol's side is the more plausible.

I think law enforcement officers should be able to expect those they command to stop to stop. If somebody refuses to stop, I think law enforcement officers should be able to use any reasonable means to stop them including shooting at a fleeing vehicle or a fleeing person. Otherwise, there is virtually no incentive for a criminal to obey a law enforcement officer ever. All they have to do is run and the police will be helpless to stop them.

Now if the criminal in question obeys the officer's command and the officer shoots anyway? Then yep. Fry that officer. He is as criminal as the one he is arresting.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

A jury believed that the officers acted brutally, and filed false reports. It also believed that they solicited perjury from witnesses. They were convicted in a fair trial.

The violator was in their custody, when the officers struck him with a rifle. He then sought to escape and was shot. The officers then lied in reports on what happened. There were witnesses to this.

Well, was that goddamn wetback-loving jury THERE? Was that weenie of a judge THERE? Those border guys WEAR UNIFORMS! I know who to trust in this equation.

A prosecutor and a bunch of other people ruined the reputation and cost those Duke guys about a million apiece in legal costs before the case was thrown out of court because the 'victim' was lying through her teeth. Lots of people believe the victim if they like the prosecution or sufficiently dislike the defendent.

A jury found OJ Simpson innocent of all charges too, remember?

We have hung jury after hung jury after hung jury here in New Mexico who can't decide on the guilt of somebody after the party ADMITS they did it.

Like I said, I've heard both sides of the border patrol incident and, unless there are circumstances that came out in the trial that have not been reported in the media, had I been on that jury, there would have been no guilty verdict.

blatham,
given you're a former Canuck, it might be interesting to compare Canada's massive open arms immigration policy to the US's illegal immigration concerns. Given their proximity one might argue their polices are at odds.

Gee, I didn't realize that OJ was at the scene.

The prosecutor in the Duke case might lose his license to practice. No one has even hinted that Sampson, the prosecutor in the border matter, be investigated.

Now you're being silly, Advocate. I mentioned those things as illustration that our legal system doesn't always get it right. If you think it does, that's cool.

Anybody who thinks our legal system is perfect needs a reality check.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 6, 2007
8:06 p.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas
A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.

The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:


confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";

were belligerent to investigators;

destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: "The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from Culberson, who charged Skinner's office with lying to the Texas congressmen and painting Ramos and Compean as dirty cops.

Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.

Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."

"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason - the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.

"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"

Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.

"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction," he said.