From: MNMikeW on

"dene" <dene(a)> wrote in message
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> news:4beb2cec$0$18393$9a6e19ea(a)
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:59:20 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>> > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
>> > news:4be9f5f2$0$18607$9a6e19ea(a)
>> >> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:42:37 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> >>> In article <4be8ade2$0$22444$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>> >>> nobrac(a) says...
>> >>>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:57:09 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <b7a230ab-06a3-4fd7-9b9d-c3656cb2d549
>> >>>>>>, johnb505(a) says...
>> >>>>>> On May 9, 10:32 pm, kenpitts <ken.p...(a)> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On May 9, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Please provide proof that putting the US military on the border
>> >>>>>>>> and shooting anyone trying to enter the country illegally is a
>> >>>>>>>> good idea.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Proof? We don't need no stinking proof. It is clearly a good
>> >>>>>>> idea.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If you're stupid and barbaric.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do you have locks on the doors of your house and cars? If yes,
>> >>>>> why?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please tell me you're not trying to equate murdering Mexicans with
>> >>>> locking doors.
>> >>>
>> >>> Keeping illegals out of our country is just like keeping burglars
>> >>> out of your house. In that sense it is the same thing. What you and
>> >>> your ilk fail to understand is that illegal is illegal regardless of
>> >>> whether you agree with the law.
>> >>
>> >> We studied personality types in college psychology. There is a
>> >> segment of the population that is unable to distinguish the
>> >> difference between law and morality. They think that all laws are
>> >> good laws and be followed, no matter how pointless or ridiculous.
>> >> These people suffer from a condition called stupidity.
>> >
>> > You mean like the people who cant tell the difference between
>> > immigration and illegal immigration? Those stupid people?
>> I guess I meant more fair-weather free-market capitalists like yourself
>> who choose to forget that workers are going to go where the jobs are,
>> borders or not. It seems ironic that you idologues suddenly forget all
>> about supply and demand and now want the government to step in and blow
>> billions of dollars sealing the Mexican border. Do you believe in
>> free-market capitalism, or not? Do you want a small government, or not?
> I think protecting our borders is a national security issue and is a
> direct
> responsibility of the federal government. It should be funded to the nth
> degree.
> -Greg
Liberals don't do security.

From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:56:18 -0500, bknight wrote:
>> On 12 May 2010 21:49:06 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:28:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> In article <4be9f994$0$4884$9a6e19ea(a)>,
>>>> nobrac(a) says...
>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:02:10 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>> In article <m44ju5hbdrpf9b2o5revnestdf2k4kt3m0(a)>,
>>>>>> bknight(a) says...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:16:25 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A chance to do what?
>>>>>>> C'mon Greg. That's perfectly clear. I wouldn't dare ask you, or
>>>>>>> anyone else, for the answer to the illegal alien problem because
>>>>>>> its so complicated, , but I will ask you this:
>>>>>>> Do you think BAR's suggestion (now said four times here) that
>>>>>>> anyone crossing our borders illegally should be summarily killed?
>>>>>>> That only requires a simple yes or no.
>>>>>> Your problem Bobby is that you refuse to address the hard problems.
>>>>>> And, your refusal to adress the hard problems is then transferred to
>>>>>> everyone else. You would rather sit back, throw your hands in the
>>>>>> air and say live and let live. When in reality that attitude is what
>>>>>> continually gets us in trouble.
>>>>> And your problem is that you insist on simple answers when there are
>>>>> none to be had.
>>>> You don't know if there is a simple answer. You reject all
>>>> possibilities except open borders.
>>>I did nothing of the kind. I did say that the issue is more complicated
>>>than you realize. Which is self-evident if you believe the answer is to
>>>murder everyone you think might be trying to cross the border illegally.
>> Nor have I suggested open borders. Carbs, I don't agree with your
>> stance to open them, but certainly am not agreeable to murder.
> I don't think I ever advocated opening the borders. My suggestion was to
> leave things as they are. I honestly don't see how undocumented workers
> are destroying the country by working for low wages and no benefits at
> jobs Americans refuse to do.

You fail to realize that not all the people streaming over our current open
border are not here to work.

From: MNMikeW on

"Loudon Briggs" <larebe(a)> wrote in message
> Howard Brazee <howard(a)> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe(a)>
>>>If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
>>>trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
>>>which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
>>What if the person is innocent?
> I'm not absolutely positive but, my understanding is that they would
> have to produce the required proof of legality, and if they do, would
> be reprimanded for not having it with them when apprehended. I don't
> think it would automatically result in deportation.
> Howard, what is so aggravating to those of us who live here, and have
> to absorb the verbal abuse that has arisen over this problem, is this
> supposition.
> If the exact same illegal entry problem were happening at common
> border crossings with Canada, in Washington, or Maine, or Minnesota,
> and similar states, the offenders would more likely be Canadians,
> British, Irish, French, Balkan countries, or some other similar area.
> If the same solutions we are trying to apply to Hispanics from all
> over South and Central America and Mexico, were used to stop the
> illegal immigration from the North, the reaction, countrywide, would
> be totally different, and you may be sure that citizens and legal
> entrants with Hispanic backgrounds, would be in the forefront of the
> objectors.
> The real problem is in Washington... neither Congress nor the
> Presidential office has produced any real effort toward a solution.
> How do you suppose citizens from northern Pennsylvania would react if
> the following were happening on their border. I quote an Arizona
> Congresswoman from southern Arizona.
> ************
> The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border
> have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the
> daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher
> testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch
> vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting
> down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found
> 17 dead bodies.
> Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his
> ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in
> front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind
> them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These
> people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This
> was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug
> trains.
> One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in
> the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced
> them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun
> fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the
> ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left
> when they come back.
> The U.S. Border Patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles
> away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are
> not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run
> around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can
> take them back across the border.
> **************
> These totally uninformed postings on this subject and statements from
> people around this country and others, compare our actions to those of
> the Nazis. My initial reaction is to compare those detractors to "the
> world" that watched that situation developing in Germany and
> basically, did NOTHING to help.
> I feel better, even if no one takes any notice of what I've said. :)
Not everyone is against Arizona Loundon. Keep up the good fight!

From: bknight on
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:35:04 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)>

>Not everyone is against Arizona Loundon.
I'll say. Around 65% back the new law. However, some of the biggest
critics are Arizonians.

Interesting article:


From: Don Kirkman on
On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:55:43 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)>

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe(a)>

>>If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
>>trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
>>which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is

>What if the person is innocent?

In this situation it's not really a matter of guilt or innocence but
of documented or undocumented. Undocumented folks are sent home,
convicted (not-innocent) folks generally serve their time in our
facilities, at least in California, and are then turned over for
deportation--thus adding to the cost of running our jails and prisons.
Don Kirkman