Citizen Border Patrols and the Law

Do you still live in Coventry?

Oh, I thought U of Warwick was in Coventry.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What coloring book did you get that from?

University of Warwick - when you click on the pic, you can see the its source.

Guilty as charged! This article was somewhat irrelevant, but I chose to interject something that would encourage debate in place of the ever so popular "I know you are, but what am I" back and forth I had read. Nevertheless, at this point I feel compelled to respond to your missive.

I have been in several hit and run accidents involving illegal immigrants, the first time ending with my chasing after the person that hit me. On the next occurrence, I had to go to the police station and attempt to identify the offending party. In the third case, I was hit by an illegal immigrant that worked in a body shop. His boss begged me to keep the matter between us and leave the authorities out of the matter.

It would be rather presumptuous of me to assume that I was the only one to have had so many accidents and with such frequency at that. Please note: the legal or illegal status of those involved in these accidents was reported to me by the police in the first two cases and by the above mentioned boss in the third accident.

That would surely be unlikely. But on the other hand, it doesn't follow that your experiences will be broadly representative in the US. We have to be careful that we don't assume local conditions or anecdotal evidence is given more warrant that deserved. Propagandists use precisely this trick to stir emotions and to introduce a false impression of how common or pervasive some unwanted behavior might be. For example, propagandists in the Muslim world will take an incident of cruelty committed by coalition forces and say "See what they are doing!". It's in Bill O'Reilly's bag of tricks, too.

I disagree with your statement concerning racism. How an individual looks acts and speaks is of no consequence to me, and that may well be true of many others. Unless and until I am told otherwise, I will give these protestors the benefit of the doubt. I see this as more a matter of legal versus illegal.

I didn't mean to suggest you were being racist. My point was simply that racism (broadly defined as resentment towards newcomers who are different) is a persistent reality in human affairs and that it is part of this particular debate/problem too. From my childhood through to the present, waves of immigrant groups have moved into rich farming area of my hometown (Chilliwack, BC). Each wave was met by negative reactions within the existing population. It's a very predictable thing.

What I mind are the illegals (yes that's their name) that assimilate into first the hispanic culture, learn Spanish, and then cross the border but they are actually terrorists. What prevention and safety can you offer to the citizens of the United States?

Little Bitty wrote

Quote:

What I mind are the illegals (yes that's their name) that assimilate into first the hispanic culture, learn Spanish, and then cross the border but they are actually terrorists. What prevention and safety can you offer to the citizens of the United States?

I think you are smuggling into this argument something which fosters fears but doesn't have an evidentiary basis. I don't know of any incident where an al quaeda linked individual has been apprehended at the Mexican border. There was one apprehended near Vancouver at the Canadian border. The bad guys involved in 9/11 flew in, a far simpler means of entering the US from other parts of the world.

There is a modern reality that the US (or Canada) are now more susceptible to terrorist attack that at any point previously, oceans and distances no longer serving to offer protection. That all by itself can increase tendencies to wall out the rest of the world, trying to make the US a fortress, but that won't work as a practical or realistic means to avoid terrorist attacks. We can make it tougher and riskier at border control points (land or sea or air) but sealing the country off is just not possible. Other policies must be adopted and one of those will inevitably have to be conforming US foreign policies to more greatly match the rest of the world.

U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July.
The Chechen group is suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists seeking to separate the southern enclave of Chechnya from Russia, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Oh, I thought U of Warwick was in Coventry.

No doubt.

I was just answering your question, didn't say anything about where I live

Walter Hinteler wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What coloring book did you get that from?

University of Warwick - when you click on the pic, you can see the its source.

However, since you seem so interested in my location, here it is:



A closer view



Some might get it just by looking at the longitude/latitude below my avatr, though.

blatham wrote:

Little Bitty wrote

Quote:

What I mind are the illegals (yes that's their name) that assimilate into first the hispanic culture, learn Spanish, and then cross the border but they are actually terrorists. What prevention and safety can you offer to the citizens of the United States?

I think you are smuggling into this argument something which fosters fears but doesn't have an evidentiary basis. I don't know of any incident where an al quaeda linked individual has been apprehended at the Mexican border. There was one apprehended near Vancouver at the Canadian border. The bad guys involved in 9/11 flew in, a far simpler means of entering the US from other parts of the world.

There is a modern reality that the US (or Canada) are now more susceptible to terrorist attack that at any point previously, oceans and distances no longer serving to offer protection. That all by itself can increase tendencies to wall out the rest of the world, trying to make the US a fortress, but that won't work as a practical or realistic means to avoid terrorist attacks. We can make it tougher and riskier at border control points (land or sea or air) but sealing the country off is just not possible. Other policies must be adopted and one of those will inevitably have to be conforming US foreign policies to more greatly match the rest of the world.

Actually it does, Blatham.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041013-121643-5028r.htm

Quote:

U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July.
The Chechen group is suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists seeking to separate the southern enclave of Chechnya from Russia, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports.

Government report revealing 165,000 non-Mexicans were apprehended at the border.
http://www.newschannel5.tv/pdf/investigations.pdf

I've been requested to send Little Bitty's condolences she didn't respond herself, she retired early.

The report is unverified at this point (I did say "apprehended" above). Clearly the potential is there, as it is via the Canadian border, but I resist the implication/suggestion that we have cause to consider the Mexican border problem one of significant terrorist threat. I do think it fear-mongering in aid of a Tancredo-stance on the issues.

You can't make any border so secure that no-one can entry uncontrolled.

Especially not with such long borders as the USA have ... not to speak about their coastline.

(I know quite a few, who entered the GDR during the Cold War illegally. And left. - I know them personally, that is. Very personally. And that border was secure.)

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You can't make any border so secure that no-one can entry uncontrolled.

Especially not with such long borders as the USA have ... not to speak about their coastline.

(I know quite a few, who entered the GDR during the Cold War illegally. And left. - I know them personally, that is. Very personally. And that border was secure.)

Neither should we give up and hang a sign that say's come one come all. Nobody is watching.

Guess is the appropriate verb, since there is absolutely no good reason to make that assumption.