Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 255

Thread: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

  1. #101
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You are confused. You condoned Mexican military pointing weapons at our citizens and your claim of justification was that we shot one of their citizens and when I pointed out their citizens have murdered our own people at the border and we do not approach with guns drawn while at the board this is the best you could come up with?
    I was actually very specific.

    I said that I condoned the Mexican military pointing their weapons at people who were armed and crossing their border and had just shot one of their citizens who was on their side of the border at the time.

    Let me ask you, if it was reversed. Lets say that a Mexican border agent shot an American Citizen who was standing on American soil who was throwing rocks at them, and then these armed Mexican Border agents were trying to cross the border, would you say that the US border agents shouldn't point their weapons at them?

    I know my thoughts. I would be pissed if the US border agents failed to point their weapons at them as they were trying to cross.

    Now, it seems there is some doubt as to whether the US border agents actually tried to cross the border.

    If they didn't attempt to cross the border, then I don't condone the Mexican authorities pointing weapons at them.

    Now, if you were simply confused and failed to comprehend the situational specificity of my comments, then perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I explicitly stated these things in my first post in this thread, and I apologize.

    Once again you aren't reading carefully. I gave you a link where Mexicans have crossed the border and murdered our people. I suggest you actually go to that link if you have the courage to confront the truth about illegal aliens murdering American citizens.

    Then explain the murdered people on the border by gunshot by illegals in that link. Go ahead.
    Are you saying this 15-year old boy killed all of these people?!?!?!?!

    If not, then it doesn't relate to my situation-specific statements, now does it? Irrational and emotional arguments have no sway with me. I don't care. If you are thinking about using an emotionally-based argument with me, rethink things.

    I...

    simply...

    don't...

    care.


    None of my arguments here have been about the fact that the boy was killed. They've always been about where he was when he was killed. If the little ****er had been on US soil at the time, I wouldn't care that he's doing a spot on impression of Swiss cheese right now.

    But he wasn't on US soil.

    Thus, I have a problem with it. It's all about logic.

    I look at how I would wish our people to act if the situations were reversed, and I apply that same reasoning to this situation.

    If things were reversed, I'd hold the same position.

    Would you support Mexican authorities shooting American citizens on American soil in these circumstances?!?!??!?

    I wouldn't.

    They have no authority here, nor should they have any authority here.

    Because of that, I believe our authorities should not have any authority there.


    And how is that equal to a rock which can be thrown at a distance, needs no conversion and is at least 10 times more dense than a newspaper?
    Density?!?!?!

    Obviously you have to brush up on physics. Denisty does not equal hardness.

    For example, ice is less dense than water. Which one is harder?

    A wooden baseball bat is less dense than liquid water. Which one is a better weapon?

    Hell, mercury (Hg), a liquid, has a density that is more than 4 times greater than teh density of a diamond, the hardest naturally occurring substance.

    Density =/= hardness and it has nothing to do with what makes an effective weapon.

    As far as "equality" goes, it depends on a lot of factors being taken into comparison. For the rock, it would depend on the rock being thrown, the distance that it must travel, and the relative skill of the thrower. For the newspaper, it depends on the skill of the person wielding the "Millhouse Brick" (this is what the actual weapon made from newspaper is called).

    The farther away the person is, the less likely a hand-thrown rock is to kill them. Simple physics. That's because as the distance increases, the weight of the rock must decrease in order to have a chance of reaching the target. This is because the maximum force that can applied to accelerating the rock is constant. In orde rto attain greater distances, force cannot be increased, so the weight of the rock must decrease. Since the impact power of the rock is dependent on the weight of the rock, distance is a huge factor in killing power of hand thrown rocks.

    Obviously a rock launched form a trebuchet will be highly effective at killing people. But no human has enough strength to match this feat. In truth, at 100 ft or so, the odds of being killed by a hand thrown stone are slim to none.

    Whereas, in order to use a millhouse brick, I must be within striking range of the person. I must also have skill at using this weapon and be able to target the right areas. It's not likely to crush a person's skull unless wielded by an exceptionally strong person, but it would collapse a larynx with little effort.

    My statement was that I can kill someone with a newspaper. If I were given a choice between throwing rocks at someone or using a millhouse brick on them, and told that my goal was to kill that person, I'd opt for the millhouse brick. I'm far more likely to be able to kill a person with the millhouse brick.

    If the goal was to irritate them from a moderate distance, I'd throw stones. The odds of killing someone like this are extremely small. If I was 2-4 ft away from them and they were immobilized, as is the case in stoning executions, I'd probably say that the rocks would be more effective. But just because a rock can be highly effective at four feet away when the target is immobilized doesn't mean **** when compared to a target 25 ft away and capable of dodging.

    But a newspaper in my hands is going to be a way deadlier weapon than a rock that is thrown by a child.

    Seriously you are trying to defend this worthless comparison of yours?
    My comparison was about relative danger of certain things. In my hands, a newspaper can be used as a weapon. A dangerous one at that.

    Hand-thrown rocks are not particularly dangerous, especially when one increases the distance from the thrower. They can be completely benign if someone acts intelligently.


    Then get your money back.

    How about this. I'll get a refund for my education after you hunt down and shoot whoever taught you that density would be a factor in weapon efficacy.

    Deal?

    If you think a rock has the equal power to kill as a newspaper you weren't paying attention.
    I'm not saying a rock has equal power to kill as a newspaper in general. I said I could kill someone with a newspaper. I could also kill someone with a rock.

    If both are being used as blunt weapons, the rock is going to be much more effective than the millhouse brick.

    But if I'm using the millhouse brick as a blunt weapon, and the rock as a projectile weapon at a distance, then the millhouse brick would be more effective.

    Let me ask you this, would you rather face off with someone who is trained in martial arts and has a newspaper that he folded into a millhouse brick, or a small child who is throwing rocks at you?

    Even better, what if the person throwing rocks is your average person, but the dude with the millhouse brick is trained in hand-to-hand combat?

    The danger posed by a particular weapon is entirely dependent on the skill of the person who wields it. Just because something can kill someone under certain conditions doesn't mean it is very likely to do so.

    Can you point to anyone in history who was killed by a newspaper at a weapon? Anyone? I can give you thousands of people who have been killed by thrown rocks.
    How many people have been killed by hand thrown rocks that were at a distance? Remember, the only reason I'm saying this is wrong is because the rock throwers were on the Mexican side of the border, which means hat there is distance.

    That also means that they cannot pass a certain point and still throw rocks without getting shot. The Border agent can increase the distance between him and the rock thrower very, very easily in order to protect himself.

    If the rock thrower steps over the border, whether he's still throwing rocks or not, then the border agent is fully able to shoot said rock thrower.



    Because you left me no other conclusion. I'll ask it again, do you support our border agents protecting themselves while on the border when attacked? Yes or No?
    Absolutely. They have every right to protect themselves in the most rational manner possible. In this case, he should have simply walked a few feet away to get out of danger.

    It's the irrational approach to the situation that is the problem. He didn't even try to remove himself from harms way. even though it would have been easy. Instead he shot someone who wasn't on US soil, which is something he is not authorized to do unless he has no other option (i.e. there is a legitimate weapon being used where he cannot reasonably walk a few feet away at a leisurely saunter in order to avoid danger. Rocks being thrown at you by hand from a distance are fairly easy to avoid when you know they are coming. I've done it hundreds of times in my life)

    Its not a question of like or dislike. Its a fact. He was right.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #102
    Guru
    bicycleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Old Virginny
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    When and where did you serve again, hero?
    Since we are talking about serving and heroes, let me digress and tell you that one of our number here at DP, MetalGear has rejoined his Army unit and is now serving in Afghanistan. Please keep him in your thoughts and prayers.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I was actually very specific.

    I said that I condoned the Mexican military pointing their weapons at people who were armed and crossing their border and had just shot one of their citizens who was on their side of the border at the time.

    Let me ask you, if it was reversed. Lets say that a Mexican border agent shot an American Citizen who was standing on American soil who was throwing rocks at them, and then these armed Mexican Border agents were trying to cross the border, would you say that the US border agents shouldn't point their weapons at them?

    I know my thoughts. I would be pissed if the US border agents failed to point their weapons at them as they were trying to cross.

    Now, it seems there is some doubt as to whether the US border agents actually tried to cross the border.

    If they didn't attempt to cross the border, then I don't condone the Mexican authorities pointing weapons at them.

    Now, if you were simply confused and failed to comprehend the situational specificity of my comments, then perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I explicitly stated these things in my first post in this thread, and I apologize.



    Are you saying this 15-year old boy killed all of these people?!?!?!?!

    If not, then it doesn't relate to my situation-specific statements, now does it? Irrational and emotional arguments have no sway with me. I don't care. If you are thinking about using an emotionally-based argument with me, rethink things.

    I...

    simply...

    don't...

    care.


    None of my arguments here have been about the fact that the boy was killed. They've always been about where he was when he was killed. If the little ****er had been on US soil at the time, I wouldn't care that he's doing a spot on impression of Swiss cheese right now.

    But he wasn't on US soil.

    Thus, I have a problem with it. It's all about logic.

    I look at how I would wish our people to act if the situations were reversed, and I apply that same reasoning to this situation.

    If things were reversed, I'd hold the same position.

    Would you support Mexican authorities shooting American citizens on American soil in these circumstances?!?!??!?

    I wouldn't.

    They have no authority here, nor should they have any authority here.

    Because of that, I believe our authorities should not have any authority there.




    Density?!?!?!

    Obviously you have to brush up on physics. Denisty does not equal hardness.

    For example, ice is less dense than water. Which one is harder?

    A wooden baseball bat is less dense than liquid water. Which one is a better weapon?

    Hell, mercury (Hg), a liquid, has a density that is more than 4 times greater than teh density of a diamond, the hardest naturally occurring substance.

    Density =/= hardness and it has nothing to do with what makes an effective weapon.

    As far as "equality" goes, it depends on a lot of factors being taken into comparison. For the rock, it would depend on the rock being thrown, the distance that it must travel, and the relative skill of the thrower. For the newspaper, it depends on the skill of the person wielding the "Millhouse Brick" (this is what the actual weapon made from newspaper is called).

    The farther away the person is, the less likely a hand-thrown rock is to kill them. Simple physics. That's because as the distance increases, the weight of the rock must decrease in order to have a chance of reaching the target. This is because the maximum force that can applied to accelerating the rock is constant. In orde rto attain greater distances, force cannot be increased, so the weight of the rock must decrease. Since the impact power of the rock is dependent on the weight of the rock, distance is a huge factor in killing power of hand thrown rocks.

    Obviously a rock launched form a trebuchet will be highly effective at killing people. But no human has enough strength to match this feat. In truth, at 100 ft or so, the odds of being killed by a hand thrown stone are slim to none.

    Whereas, in order to use a millhouse brick, I must be within striking range of the person. I must also have skill at using this weapon and be able to target the right areas. It's not likely to crush a person's skull unless wielded by an exceptionally strong person, but it would collapse a larynx with little effort.

    My statement was that I can kill someone with a newspaper. If I were given a choice between throwing rocks at someone or using a millhouse brick on them, and told that my goal was to kill that person, I'd opt for the millhouse brick. I'm far more likely to be able to kill a person with the millhouse brick.

    If the goal was to irritate them from a moderate distance, I'd throw stones. The odds of killing someone like this are extremely small. If I was 2-4 ft away from them and they were immobilized, as is the case in stoning executions, I'd probably say that the rocks would be more effective. But just because a rock can be highly effective at four feet away when the target is immobilized doesn't mean **** when compared to a target 25 ft away and capable of dodging.

    But a newspaper in my hands is going to be a way deadlier weapon than a rock that is thrown by a child.



    My comparison was about relative danger of certain things. In my hands, a newspaper can be used as a weapon. A dangerous one at that.

    Hand-thrown rocks are not particularly dangerous, especially when one increases the distance from the thrower. They can be completely benign if someone acts intelligently.





    How about this. I'll get a refund for my education after you hunt down and shoot whoever taught you that density would be a factor in weapon efficacy.

    Deal?



    I'm not saying a rock has equal power to kill as a newspaper in general. I said I could kill someone with a newspaper. I could also kill someone with a rock.

    If both are being used as blunt weapons, the rock is going to be much more effective than the millhouse brick.

    But if I'm using the millhouse brick as a blunt weapon, and the rock as a projectile weapon at a distance, then the millhouse brick would be more effective.

    Let me ask you this, would you rather face off with someone who is trained in martial arts and has a newspaper that he folded into a millhouse brick, or a small child who is throwing rocks at you?

    Even better, what if the person throwing rocks is your average person, but the dude with the millhouse brick is trained in hand-to-hand combat?

    The danger posed by a particular weapon is entirely dependent on the skill of the person who wields it. Just because something can kill someone under certain conditions doesn't mean it is very likely to do so.



    How many people have been killed by hand thrown rocks that were at a distance? Remember, the only reason I'm saying this is wrong is because the rock throwers were on the Mexican side of the border, which means hat there is distance.

    That also means that they cannot pass a certain point and still throw rocks without getting shot. The Border agent can increase the distance between him and the rock thrower very, very easily in order to protect himself.

    If the rock thrower steps over the border, whether he's still throwing rocks or not, then the border agent is fully able to shoot said rock thrower.





    Absolutely. They have every right to protect themselves in the most rational manner possible. In this case, he should have simply walked a few feet away to get out of danger.

    It's the irrational approach to the situation that is the problem. He didn't even try to remove himself from harms way. even though it would have been easy. Instead he shot someone who wasn't on US soil, which is something he is not authorized to do unless he has no other option (i.e. there is a legitimate weapon being used where he cannot reasonably walk a few feet away at a leisurely saunter in order to avoid danger. Rocks being thrown at you by hand from a distance are fairly easy to avoid when you know they are coming. I've done it hundreds of times in my life)



    Translation, Mexicans have more rights then US Border Patrol Agents.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #104
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Translation, Mexicans have more rights then US Border Patrol Agents.
    Correction: Mexican officials have more authority in Mexico than US Border Patrol Agents do.

    The rights of Mexicans and US Border patrol agents are equal, regardless of where they happen to be.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-11-10 at 11:58 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    IMO, this is the kind of issue that can create opportunity for resolution through constructive and practical bilateral diplomacy between Mexico and the U.S. Such diplomacy would:

    1. Define clear parameters of operation along the border. If misunderstandings/tensions are high, then various measures could be undertaken either temporarily or permanently. For example, the presence of armed elements from both countries would be restricted to a set distance (probably a few hundred meters e.g., out of the range of stones) of the border except in cases of clear emergencies e.g., when the lives of one or more persons are at imminent risk. Another possibility would be the use of joint patrols operating within a given distance of the border (both sides of the border; they could be comprised of equal representation or perhaps those on the U.S. side would have more Americans than Mexicans and vice versa on the Mexican side of the border).

    2. Establish a joint investigative body with equal representation between the two countries to look into incidents such as the one in question. That way each side would have a stake in the findings, perceptions of bias in favor of one side or the other would be reduced, and the transparency would facilitate greater trust among the larger communities on both sides of the border. Such a committee could, among other things, be modeled after the mechanisms used to resolve disputes within NAFTA.

    3. Increase cooperation among law enforcement on both sides of the border to deal with issues of common interest e.g., narcotics-related trafficking and violence.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-11-10 at 01:38 PM.

  6. #106
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, this is the kind of issue that can create opportunity for resolution through constructive and practical bilateral diplomacy between Mexico and the U.S. Such diplomacy would:

    1. Define clear parameters of operation along the border. If misunderstandings/tensions are high, then various measures could be undertaken either temporarily or permanently. For example, the presence of armed elements from both countries would be restricted to a set distance (probably a few hundred meters e.g., out of the range of stones) of the border except in cases of clear emergencies e.g., when the lives of one or more persons are at imminent risk. Another possibility would be the use of joint patrols operating within a given distance of the border (both sides of the border; they could be comprised of equal representation or perhaps those on the U.S. side would have more Americans than Mexicans and vice versa on the Mexican side of the border).

    2. Establish a joint investigative body with equal representation between the two countries to look into incidents such as the one in question. That way each side would have a stake in the findings, perceptions of bias in favor of one side or the other would be reduced, and the transparency would facilitate greater trust among the larger communities on both sides of the border. Such a committee could, among other things, be modeled after the mechanisms used to resolve disputes within NAFTA.

    3. Increase cooperation among law enforcement on both sides of the border to deal with issues of common interest e.g., narcotics-related trafficking and violence.
    And what is stopping this process now? Don, with all due respect, come on! It is NOT going to happen, because Mexico gets no benefit from this.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #107
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
    No, it's an accurate characterization of the kind of belligerent nationalism/chauvinism I see in this thread. If you don't like that, you should talk to your fellow nationalists.
    So you admit you completely made it up.

    Got it. Next time just don't pretend its a real quote.

    There's no such thing as an independent entity called "the country." The reference to the actions of "the country" is usually reference to the actions of the executive branch of the federal government, as I said.
    LOL That makes zero sense but what a surprise. This is a republic not a dictatorship.

    There are various municipal, regional, and state governments and branches within them that are frequently at odds with each other and the power of the federal government. But my reference was to the people within administrations, who move in and out.
    Those are levels of government not "governments"

    Everyone knows "people" that are intelligence or military personnel. Are you personally a top-level administrator that manages intelligence and military operations? Do you work in the upper echelons of the DoD? Are you stationed at the Pentagon? If you are none of those things, you have no reason to claim that you have possession of actions and campaigns ordered by those people.
    I never said I had possession of any actions. I said its offensive for you to slam the government and military as a whole which is exactly what you did. Try to keep up.

    My statements are intended as reciprocal, as mirrors of your own statements, to give you a taste of your own medicine and show you the consequences of the consistent application of your ideas. If you don't like the fact that consistent application of principles against immoral/illegal immigration means that Europeans should not have landed and pillaged the Western Hemisphere, you should adopt a less belligerent stance.
    Sorry, I don't base my arguments on racial preference. You do.

    There isn't a people on this planet that haven't had land stolen or been slaves to another group of people so get over yourself. This is a republic where slavery has been abolished and racial justification for land ownership is just as outdated.

    If you are still pissed the Europeans beat your people because of their advanced weapons I suggest you contemplate why your own people never advanced in technology instead of blaming others for doing so.

    Someday you are going to have to let go of your racial hatred of Europeans and accept that you live in the United States where the laws apply to everyone.
    Last edited by texmaster; 06-11-10 at 01:45 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  8. #108
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    There comes a point in time where enough is enough. That time has arrived, the US needs to inform Mexico about who the alpha-country on this continent is. We have put up with this illegal alien BS since the late-60's when Ted Kennedy pushed through the legislation. The honeymoon for Mexico needs to come to a swift end, RIGHT NOW!
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, this is the kind of issue that can create opportunity for resolution through constructive and practical bilateral diplomacy between Mexico and the U.S. Such diplomacy would:

    1. Define clear parameters of operation along the border. If misunderstandings/tensions are high, then various measures could be undertaken either temporarily or permanently. For example, the presence of armed elements from both countries would be restricted to a set distance (probably a few hundred meters e.g., out of the range of stones) of the border except in cases of clear emergencies e.g., when the lives of one or more persons are at imminent risk. Another possibility would be the use of joint patrols operating within a given distance of the border (both sides of the border; they could be comprised of equal representation or perhaps those on the U.S. side would have more Americans than Mexicans and vice versa on the Mexican side of the border).

    2. Establish a joint investigative body with equal representation between the two countries to look into incidents such as the one in question. That way each side would have a stake in the findings, perceptions of bias in favor of one side or the other would be reduced, and the transparency would facilitate greater trust among the larger communities on both sides of the border. Such a committee could, among other things, be modeled after the mechanisms used to resolve disputes within NAFTA.

    3. Increase cooperation among law enforcement on both sides of the border to deal with issues of common interest e.g., narcotics-related trafficking and violence.
    Don, that all sounds well and good but be serious here...it's Mexico. Mexico is not a proactive government and with the poverty and class disparity in Mexico, any poor Mexicans they can send across the border to the US is only a good thing for Mexico. They have no vested interest in controlling the border because they scarcely control their own sovereign lands. Mexicans have been trained to welcome American money whether it be tourism in their country or illegal jobs and tapping social services in ours but they have never been taught respect for America's laws and sovereignty. And why is this? That answer is simple: Mexico itself is a lawless country with corruption being the norm at every level of government. It was laughable when Margarita Zavala Calderon met Michelle Obama and gave her disingenuous, crocodile tear laden speech about the plight of poor illegal girls in America when they won't even manage the plight of women in Mexico. Cuidad Juarez is the seat of sexual homicide in the entire world and the people there have had to take up grass roots movements to make some attempt to curb the violence. Drug cartels and their prostitution rings terrorize the people and the government is one of the biggest thugs of all.

    No, I think relying on any partnership with Mexico to enforce what Mexico has no interest in enforcing is just asking for more trouble. We can and should handle it and dare Mexico to get uppity about it.

  10. #110
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: FBI: Mexican soldiers used rifles to chase off U.S. Border Patrol

    American and Jallman,

    What I'm suggesting would be intended to deal with the far narrower goal of seeking to reduce the number and frequency of violent incidents along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as providing an agreed approach for addressing such incidents when they do occur.

    The larger, more controversial issue of immigration/economic migration/undocumented immigrants is a separate matter. In the U.S., I don't believe there is a viable alternative to federal immigration policy/reform. That such a policy vacuum exists is a problem. Needless to say, even on the broader issue of immigration/undocumented immigrants, there can be a bilateral component where interests are relatively compatible e.g., aimed at working to reduce the economic disparities that contribute to cross-border migration.

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •