Drvr1

This is from an old discussion but

I want a vote.



How many of you here think using

deadly force to stop illegals is not

heartless and the right thing to do?



There was one positive and one

other supporting it in that thread.

Here is a chance to make it clear.





you can See the whole thread at



Re: Where to report illegal aliens and/or employers



    >> "drvr1"

>perhaps, you are not racist but you

>are certainly heartless.





>> Oliver Costich

Sometimes heartless is what's needed for self preservation, or don't

you believe in that either?





>Originally posted by Anonymous

>> "drvr1" <member18662@british_expats.com> wrote in message

>> news:"]news:1105897.1070914-

>> [/url]...

>> > I can understand why you are hurting. But, a WASP once

>> > -a roomate- left us with ~$2000 phone bill he made to

>> > sex lines in college. Like we had extra money to support

>> his

>> > lack of social skills to get a girlfriend. You see my

>> point.

>> Your 'point' is pointless. 'Illegal Aliens'

>> is not a racial term. It

>> applies to anyone and everyone in the country illegally,
>> regardless

>> of race.

>> > I think breaking the law is wrong. But, you know we have

>> > all sort of laws. Some are moral like don't kill. Some are

>> > made because we have no other chioce but to have them

>> > so we can function and to be honest because we are selfish.

>> > Like turning around a single mom and her child from the US

>> > or deporting them because they are "illegal", even though

>> she

>> > is a good person and is trying to do all she can.

>> She appears to have made a choice to have a child she could not

>> support. She

>> must take responsibility for her own decisions and receive the

>> benefits or

>> consequences of that action. That does not mean the U.S. has a

>> responsibility to pay the medical expenses for her and her child

>> as happens

>> for nearly all illegal aliens from Mexico. Mexico has a RIGHT to

>> self-determination about the future of Mexico - don't you
>> agree? Then

>> doesn't the United States also have a RIGHT to self-
>> determination?

>> Isn't it

>> reasonable that the United States should be able to determine
>> how many

>> people can enter the country so we can influence the size of the

>> population

>> and the quality of the environment. Or is only Mexico allowed

>> to decide

>> those things for itself? I say if illegal immigrants violate

>> our borders

>> there should be loudspeakers installed warning that coming across

>> away from

>> the legal places will result in death. Then mines should be

>> placed on U.S.

>> soil near the borders. Having been warned by the continual

>> announcements in

>> Spanish and English from the loudspeakers any deaths will
>> then be the

>> responsibility of the illegal aliens, correct?

Sanbernardino

Let me get this straight. You are asking who thinks murder is
acceptable?

Drvr1

Yes I am.





See, so far two or three people think it is.

They think it's "self preservation" or "protecting borders"

It amazes me, in a dark kind of a way, how they get there.









Originally posted by SanBernardino

Let me get this straight. You are asking who thinks murder is
acceptable?

Sanbernardino

I don't really see the point of the question though. Some people will
value "protecting borders" over the lives of other people. Some people
will value morality higher. A more interesting question would be:

Which borders are we most interested in protecting?

What are good ways to prevent illegal immigration? Why is a proposed
method better than its alternatives?



I think honest answers to both those questions will have less to do with
"self preservation" and national "sovereignty" and more to do with
economics. I don't have the time or energy for this debate right now, so
I am stepping out now. I just want to suggest that the answers you get
are influenced by the kind of questions you ask.

Drvr1

I understand but I think you had it

right the first time. It's simple.

I want to see

who thinks murder is justified and

see how they do it. As I said, (in

daily life I never meet these people)

I am interested in their minds.







Originally posted by SanBernardino

    > I don't really see the point of the question though. Some people will
    > value "protecting borders" over the lives of other ople. Some people
    > will value morality higher. A more interesting question would be:

    > Which borders are we most interested in protecting?

    > What are good ways to prevent illegal immigration? Why is a proposed
    > method better than its alternatives?


    > I think honest answers to both those


questions will have less to do with "self preservation" and national
"sovereignty" and more to do with economics. I don't have the time or
energy for this debate right now, so I am stepping out now. I just want
to suggest that the answers you get are influenced by the kind of
questions you ask.

Be Nice

Stupid postings like this finally got to me.
Good bye - news groups.
**** YOU PEOPLE

Thehelper

"Be Nice" <> wrote in message
news:mDaGb.118546$...
    > Stupid postings like this finally got to me.
    > Good bye - news groups.
    > **** YOU PEOPLE

**** YOU TOO PIECE OF DIRT

Oliver Costich

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:08:43 +0000, SanBernardino
<member12808@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >I don't really see the point of the question though. Some people will
    >value "protecting borders" over the lives of other people. Some people
    >will value morality higher. A more interesting question would be:
    >Which borders are we most interested in protecting?
    >What are good ways to prevent illegal immigration? Why is a proposed
    >method better than its alternatives?
    >I think honest answers to both those questions will have less to do with
    >"self preservation" and national "sovereignty" and more to do with
    >economics. I don't have the time or energy for this debate right now, so
    >I am stepping out now. I just want to suggest that the answers you get
    >are influenced by the kind of questions you ask.

The issue IS economic and debating with him is a waste of time. He
just never gets it.

Movieguy

Originally posted by drvr1

    > I understand but I think you had it

    > right the first time. It's simple.

    > I want to see

    > who thinks murder is justified and

    > see how they do it. As I said, (in

    > daily life I never meet these people)

    > I am interested in their minds.





All gringos are illegal aliens, They were never invited by the



native Americans in the first place and when they were



trusted, they plundered and murdered those who helped



them. This is historical fact. The Spanish and Mexicans were



first in the west after the Indians. Once again the White



Europeans invaded and destroyed anyone in their way.



So if we are talking ethical/moral rights, the whites are



ogres or whatever, if we are referring to might by self-



imposed legalities as forced on everyone by the descendants



of the Mayflower al la so-called pilgrims, etc. Then Washington



has the power, must be adhered to, or else. What do you think



is right. The original people,s laws, or those imposed by brute



force, by the whites, from the crusades and butchering none



christians to the Cavalry massacares of the American Indians or



should we respect the rights of those who were here first,



who Uncle Sam conveniently calls indigenents or illegal aliens,



who,s kiddin who.

Drvr1

Originally posted by Movieguy

    > All gringos are illegal aliens, They were never invited by the


    > native Americans in the first place and when they were


    > trusted, they plundered and murdered those who helped


    > them. This is historical fact. The Spanish and Mexicans were


    > first in the west after the Indians. Once again the White


    > Europeans invaded and destroyed anyone in their way.


    > So if we are talking ethical/moral rights, the whites are


    > ogres or whatever, if we are referring to might by self-


    > imposed legalities as forced on everyone by the descendants


    > of the Mayflower al la so-called pilgrims, etc. Then Washington


    > has the power, must be adhered to, or else. What do you think


    > is right. The original people,s laws, or those imposed by brute


    > force, by the whites, from the crusades and butchering none


    > christians to the Cavalry massacares of the American Indians or


    > should we respect the rights of those who were here first,


    > who Uncle Sam conveniently calls indigenents or illegal aliens,


    > who,s kiddin who.





Some good points.

I don't think illegal immigrants pose a serious problem considering

problems humanity faces. I want to be clear, I do not support

the use of deadly force to end illegal immigration. I asked the

question for reasons explained above. In fact, I support

a better and legal movement of Mexican workers into the US

and granting legal status to some (certainly not all) of those

in the US (if they have lived here over certain # of years, if they

are married and have small children etc.)



Having made that clear, I must point out that the natives

of the new world were themselves engaged in invasion and

destruction just as the Europeans were. Destruction and

greed is not and has never been imited to the Europeans. Europe of today
has emerged as a force for good in the world for the most part. Europe
and "white" people (whatever that means)

are no more good or evil than the rest of people in this world.

Attacking Euro-Americans and constantly blaming them will

cause them to get angry and close the doors of immigration

to preserve their relative numbers. (I think this partly explains

at least why some are so worried)