As you may already know, there are many Mexicans who hold to the view that we essentially stole California, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, and parts of Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming from them through the annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War and the Gadsten Purchase.
Now let's suppose that there is a movement to recover those territories. Suppose that a large number of unarmed Mexicans massed on the border, proclaimed that they were going to take back what was their land and began moving to cross over into American territory.
Would that not be an invasion and would the United States not be justified in responding to it as such?
You're the president. All you have is the military with their standard weapons. Your options are essentially limited to (a) let them come, or (b) shoot them.
What do you do and why?
Sorry, But Santa Is Way Ahead Of You
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Hmmmm. Is this a disguised put-up for the Syrians recently massing on the border with Israel to memorialize the day when the Palestinians lost everything? Where they were shot by Israeli troops? The Israelis say this was deliberate by the Syrians to try to distract the people and their civil unrest. I couldn't help wonder if The Israelis were saying that to distract world opinion against Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Let the dogfight begin........
I live in one of those states. Ya let them come, and work on a fake SS# and pay taxes that the govt accepts and pays out to it's older social security recipients.
You definitely don't shoot them because then the already wealthy in both countries won't make money on the illegal drug deals.
Big Ag benefits because they have a cheap, disposable, compliant work force and again, the wealthy in both countries are made wealthier.
(sorry, couldn't resist the snark)
Soverignty means controlling access to one's borders. Yes, it's an invasion. Yes, it will stop very, very quickly when the 7.62mm starts flying. Yes, people will criticize and complain. The people are whining have no dog in the fight. Ignore them.
Remember, we've been pushing those same folks south since Plymouth Rock.
Hmmm, I wonder that they push back...
Hell, let them come on up, they can't do any worse than we do with the land already!
w3ski
Declare them citizens and
tax them.
Cheaper than bullets.
Either that or attack their former home while they are here.
Eck!
Here's another hypothetical: If cows can fly, should you wear hip boots or dress shoes to a fancy dinner party, and what color should your umbrella be?
Your question presumes that things like rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses, and truncheons do not exist. All those, and more, have been used to shut down mass protests of unarmed people who intend to make a point by massing in an area they're not supposed to be in, without a single live round fired.
I do note that there are those who believe that we *should* open fire upon unarmed civilians crossing the Mexican-American border. We call them "criminals", and place them in jail as murderers if they in fact succeed in accomplishing their task. See "Shawna Forde".
These people also call the folks who come across the border "cockroaches", and claim that they're not really human so it's okay to just kill them like you'd kill vermin. Hmm, who else says things like that? I seem to recall a person high up in the government of a certain theocracy who has made the same statement about people who aren't members of his religion. Hmm.....
- Badtux the Practical Penguin
One more thing: Border guards who fire upon unarmed civilians with live rounds are convicted of manslaughter in civilized nations. At least, that's what happened to the East German border guards who fired upon unarmed civilians with live ammunition. But I suppose there's one standard for people shooting at their own citizens, and another standard for people shooting at untermenschen vermin and cockroaches, eh?
- Badtux the Mensch Penguin
So the Germans' big mistake was to bring their guns with them when they went for those big organized hikes in 1914 and 1939?
Yeppers. Border guard shoots someone with a gun comin' towards him, he gets a medal. He shoots someone without a gun or other visible weapon, he better damn well have had some reason to fear for his life, or make one up lickety split, or he's bound for Club Fed... just ask Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean about that one.
Deadly weapons merit deadly force. No deadly weapons, no deadly force. Proportionate response. In the civilized world, it's not just a good idea. It's the law.
-- Badtux the Proportionate Penguin
Post a Comment