The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 15, 2002, 02:06 PM   #1
AZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2000
Location: S.W. - AZ.
Posts: 203
Immigrants shot while crossing to U.S

Immigrants shot while crossing to U.S.; Congressman pushing to militarize border

BY LUKE TURF
Jun 15, 2002


http://www.yumasun.com/artman/publish/story_330.shtml


At least six illegal immigrants were wounded when their vehicle was blasted with gunfire Friday morning as it illegally crossed the U.S. border near Calexico, Calif.

The six immigrants were hospitalized in El Centro and San Diego, two of whom were in critical but stable condition later Friday, said Manuel Garcia, spokesman for the Imperial County Sheriff's office.

An investigation was being conducted by officers from both the sheriff's office and FBI agents, said Manny Figueroa, spokesman for the U.S. Border Patrol's El Centro sector. The Associated Press said that at least one of the victims reported the vehicle in which the shooters were traveling belonged to the Mexican military, but Garcia said no military units or law enforcement agency from Mexico is suspected of the shooting.

Twenty-one illegal immigrants were packed into the Chevrolet Suburban, Figueroa said.

The incident occurred as a Colorado congressman is pushing to militarize the Mexican border.

Border Patrol agents may have a lot to worry about when dealing with illegal Mexican crossers and dope smugglers, but they also consider Mexican law enforcement a threat when their vehicles are illegally on this side of the border, said U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Mexican federales illegally crossed the border near Yuma five times in the fiscal year 2001. And there was one incursion, or illegal entry, by the federal officers this fiscal year, said Mike McGlasson, spokesman for the patrol's Yuma sector.

McGlasson said the Mexican officers fled back south of the border in every instance before Border Patrol agents could apprehend them. But agents know Mexican officers are armed and are advised to call for backup in such circumstances, McGlasson said.

Over in the Tucson sector, not all Mexican officers are heading back over the border just at the sight of U.S. officers. It's believed a U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot at by a Mexican military unit south of Ajo May 17, though the investigation is still pending.

This is one reason Tancredo said he considers Mexican law enforcement officials coming into the United States a threat to Border Patrol agents and the anti-drug security they provide the United States.

Tancredo said he considers shots fired at U.S. law enforcement agents, on their own soil, an act of war. So he's pushing the president to station the military along the U.S. border. He said he thinks there's corruption of Mexican agents along the border because they can make money providing security to dope smugglers or by distracting Border Patrol agents by making their own incursions.

According to Tancredo, 118 Mexican incursions have been confirmed since 1997.

"There are many more that occur that don't achieve the level of confirmed," he said.

And it should be of grave concern to Arizonans, Tancredo said, since most of the 23 incursions in 2001 took place in the Tucson area.

"If it were widely known, there would be a lot of people who would demand some more border security," Tancredo said. He said he's worried a U.S. agent is going to get killed the next time a Mexican agent opens fire.

Nonetheless, Tancredo says his proposal to tighten up the border will be met with opposition from both parties. He said U.S. officials also don't want to tighten border security because they're looking out for their own agendas.

Tancredo said his fellow Republicans don't want to lose the cheap source of labor illegal immigrants provide. And as for his Democrat counterparts, Tancredo said they're interested in the votes illegal immigrants will eventually provide them.

"If we were to actually try and control our borders down there, we would impede the flow of illegal immigrants," Tancredo said.

Tancredo also sent a letter to Mexican President Vincente Fox. He said he doesn't think Fox is corrupt, but he's seeking an explanation of the incursions and any disciplinary action against the illegal crossings.
__________________
"For the Children:
RESTORE the CONSTITUTION"
******************************
Buy American The Job You Save May Be Your Own
AZ is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 02:47 PM   #2
mussi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2000
Location: Berne, Switzerland
Posts: 757
Do I see pigs flying around, or has LE decided to protect the borders?
mussi is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 03:43 PM   #3
Navy joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2001
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Twenty-one illegal immigrants were packed into the Chevrolet Suburban, Figueroa said.
Wow!, obviously the Border Patrol was concerned about an HOV violation.
__________________
FY47012
Navy joe is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 04:39 PM   #4
Waterdog
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2000
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,236
Tancredo hit it on the head. Both parties only seek to protect their agendas.

Waterdog
Waterdog is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 05:17 PM   #5
Solitar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2000
Location: Solitary
Posts: 717
backup heck!

Quote:
But agents know Mexican officers are armed and are advised to call for backup in such circumstances,
Their "backup" should be a helicopter gunship to lay in enough fire to burn those Mexican federale vehicles and guns into slag. Sorry folks, but these incursions should be regarded as a "military violation of our border' and responded to accordingly. Okay, give them a chance to identify themselves and surrender first. If they fail to do so, then burn 'em.
Solitar is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 06:09 PM   #6
mussi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2000
Location: Berne, Switzerland
Posts: 757
What about an M2 Bradley who lets go a belt of 25mm HE-I?
mussi is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 06:22 PM   #7
clem
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2001
Location: Arizona Territory
Posts: 847
Armed foreign troops crossed into OUR COUNTRY , America and then opened fire on a non-military vehicle with people in it?

Is this not an act of terror?

Is this not an act of war?

Didn't something like this happen once on 12/07/41, involving armed foreign forces???

What the heXX is going on in Washington?

Do they not care?

Do they wait untill it's terrorists with a nuclear or bio weapon?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLOSE THE BORDERS, BOTH OF THEM. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

One more time.

CLOSE THE BORDERS, BOTH OF THEM, NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Clem
USMC Retired
clem is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 06:31 PM   #8
longeyes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2000
Location: True West
Posts: 1,350
a wager

If and when Bush "militarizes" the Southern border it will be to protect the migrants from "vigilantes." He knows where his real priorities lie.
__________________
"You come far, Pilgrim."
"Feels like far."
"Were it worth the trouble?"
"Ah...what trouble?" ~Jeremiah Johnson
longeyes is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 10:50 PM   #9
AZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2000
Location: S.W. - AZ.
Posts: 203
more on the illegall crossing

Eight Migrants Wounded in Shootout in Mexican Desert Near Border
The Associated Press
Published: Jun 15, 2002

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGADA5F8I2D.html

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Vehicles carrying Latin Americans trying to illegally enter the United States were shot at in the desert near the border city of Mexicali, leaving eight migrants wounded, newspapers reported Saturday.
The sports utility vehicles were carrying 23 people, when the firing began Friday, the Baja California newspapers El Mexicano and Frontera said.

The papers said the immigrant smugglers - possibly traveling in two vehicles - had been seen by U.S. officials as they were trying to cross into the United States.

The vehicles then turned around and headed back into Mexico where they were challenged by a Mexican army patrol, they said.

The drivers reportedly refused to stop, and may have fired at the army patrol, sparking the gunfight, the reports said.

One vehicle apparently escaped, while the other crossed again into the United States, where the two most seriously wounded victims were listed in stable condition at a San Diego hospital.

The 23 people inside the vehicles included six women and one child. Seventeen were from El Salvador, one from Ecuador and five from Mexico.

A spokeswoman for Mexico's Defense Secretariat said she had no information on the claim by at least one victims that soldiers fired at the vehicles.
__________________
"For the Children:
RESTORE the CONSTITUTION"
******************************
Buy American The Job You Save May Be Your Own
AZ is offline  
Old June 15, 2002, 11:53 PM   #10
Solitar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2000
Location: Solitary
Posts: 717
Am I wrong in reading the Mexican federales were shooting at these illegal Central Americans to keep them from coming back into Mexico? Such illegals are not welcome in southern Mexico either and have been deported by Mexico back to where they came from -- Central or South America.

Darn it all!
To a great degree I agree with Clem regarding both borders or actually all the borders. But beyond stopping a flood of people who take advantage of American benefits but don't want to pay American dues or be Americans, sealing any of the borders against saboteurs or other foreign enemies is going to be tough.
Solitar is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 04:36 AM   #11
JimDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2000
Location: San Jose, PRK
Posts: 545
For those of you who disagree with putting the military on the border and dealing with these illegals once and for all, pick up a copy of WorldNetDaily's Whistle Blower from about Jan this year.

Read about how they leave their dying in the heat to die... how they turn the crossing areas into a DUMP. How they leave our cattle to die of thirst by damaging the watering holes so the illegals can drink. How they break into OUR homes and loot them for everything of value.
__________________
NRA Instructor / GOA / NRA Patron
Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there.
JimDiver is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 11:29 AM   #12
longeyes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2000
Location: True West
Posts: 1,350
the theory of political catastrophism

It is going to take violent skirmishes at the border, which in my mind are inevitable given the current problems down there, or some kind of major terrorist event traceable to an open border, before the media and the pols take serious notice of this issue and begin to line up with, rather than against, the American public. Right now we have the proverbial elephant in the living room, but everyone with power is conveniently blind.

Tancredo has a lot of guts.

We need more Clems and fewer Dems.
__________________
"You come far, Pilgrim."
"Feels like far."
"Were it worth the trouble?"
"Ah...what trouble?" ~Jeremiah Johnson
longeyes is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 12:28 PM   #13
Futo Inu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 1999
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Posts: 3,624
Interesting, but maybe those that are familiar with the situation could answer two questions for me:

1. WHY would the mexican federales shoot at the USBP agents?

2. WHY would the mexican federales shoot at the immigrants (from their perspective, emigrants)?

I.e. why shoot at anyone and why any incursion into the U.S.? I agree that this is an act of war - the mere incursion, without specific authority from our gov't to do this.
Futo Inu is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 12:54 PM   #14
Waitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Posts: 2,904
Both US political parties are responsible. Mexican federales / police / drug runners have been pulling these stunts for a while. No one in the US wants to touch it. Democrats kiss up because it represents voters. Republicans won't touch it because it represents a labor pool that is needed for bidness.

In any case US sovereignty suffers. What is beginning to happen is the time honored tradition of vigilantism. Vigilantism ALWAYS flourishes when duly constituted government (regardless of the level) fails or refuses to enforce law. No one in the ruling class wants to deal with the problem but they will have to act if taxpaying, formerly law-abiding citizens begin to act in their own interests. I'm not saying it happened here. I am saying future events are somewhat predictable should US politicians continue to be complicit in undermining US sovereignty.
__________________
"Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.
Waitone is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 12:57 PM   #15
bullet44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2000
Posts: 819
WHY would the mexican federales shoot at the USBP agents?

2. WHY would the mexican federales shoot at the immigrants (from their perspective, emigrants"

1-Intimation, keep the BP from watching a
certain area also knowing the American
gov. wont do anything about it.

2- It would appear the illegals dident pay
the "toll" therefore open season.

Much of the border is in a sense a war
zone and it continues to get worse.
bullet44 is offline  
Old June 16, 2002, 01:06 PM   #16
clem
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2001
Location: Arizona Territory
Posts: 847
In all likelihood either the Mexican troops/police were corrupt and guarding/escourting a drug/illegal shipment.
Or the people who opened fire on the vehicle were NOT Mexican troops/police, but bad guys dressed out as such.

The shooting at USBP: Well, bad guys or corruption, as noted above did it and they don't want to lose the load.

The shooting at the immigrants:
I'm guessing two possiable reasons.
#1, The immigrants were not immigrants but OTHER bad guys trying to highjack a drug shipment or shooting up the competition,

or #2, shooting at innocents ties up the American cops with helping the innocents who are shot, there by taxing the American cops resources. (So you can get away).

South of Arizona, the Mexican Cartels are really building up and taking over. They have moved their operations from the San Diego/Calif. border area over to Arizona where there are less patrols and USBP.

Along the Indian Reservation's border with Mexico, about 800 to 1,500 illegals cross A DAY. The estimate is from USBP and the Tribal Police. If there is this much activity with just illegals, what do you think the doppers are doing?


Anyway, this is what I know and what I think.

Clem
USMC Retired
clem is offline  
Old June 17, 2002, 12:35 PM   #17
ankara36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Posts: 257
Bush won't touch this issue because of the Latino vote. Neither will any Democrat. If corrupt Mexican federals and illegal immigrants can commit incursions across our borders at will, terrorists can smuggle in armaments for their operatives as well. I shudder at the thought of what the next big terrorist act will be.

Our Federal gov't pretends the threat will come from its citizens, so they violate our rights instead.

As long as American sovreignty of its borders is not enforced, this 'war on terror' will remain a big, expensive joke.
ankara36 is offline  
Old June 17, 2002, 01:15 PM   #18
Will Beararms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,834
Since we are a Coporate Republic, ie: a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation held under the framework of a constitution interpreted for the benefit of corporations, don't count on any substantive action regarding our border with Mexico. To do so, would mean putting the ability for corporations to pay mexican workers $10.00 per day with little or no benefits in serious danger. Sorry folks.
__________________
"Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second."
-- Aron Bielski
Will Beararms is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 11:15 PM   #19
cuerno de chivo
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2000
Posts: 919
I hope any Military on the border is more successful than

the Marines that shot the US citizen on his private property while he was tending his livestock in Texas.
cuerno de chivo is offline  
Old June 18, 2002, 11:37 PM   #20
Libertarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 1999
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,117
We need the Army not the Marines. The Marines are trained for assault. The Army is more trained as Peace jeepers (unfortunately).
__________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." JFK


My other favorite forum is The Armed Citizen

My PGP key is 0x780B7C0A
Libertarian is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 12:13 AM   #21
40ozflatfoot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: SD
Posts: 462
clem,
Quote:
CLOSE THE BORDERS, BOTH OF THEM, NOW!!!!!!!!!!
I agree, but how are you gonna enforce it? There's a lot of desert out there, not to forget all those miles and miles of high mountain forest roads, many of them impassable in winter along the northern border. That's a lot of manpower.

Quote:
We need the Army not the Marines.
What we need is the militia. Who's game?


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...hreadid=118012
__________________
There are five boxes to freedom: soap, ballot, witness, jury, cartridge.
TFL Alumnus.
40ozflatfoot is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 04:58 AM   #22
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLOSE THE BORDERS, BOTH OF THEM, NOW!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, but how are you gonna enforce it? There's a lot of desert out there, not to forget all those miles and miles of high mountain forest roads, many of them impassable in winter along the northern border. That's a lot of manpower.
Long ago, when I was a military officer for the country of my birth (long before I became a hot-blooded American male - by choice), I had the pleasure of running a command post of a heavily militarized "closed" border. It look an unbelievable amount of manpower and the complete militarization of the border area to about 5 KM depth and signficant militarization of about 25 KM depth (complete with patrols, dogs, barbed wires, motion detectors and "your identity card please" all night) to "close" that sector of the border. Even then there were still successful enemy infiltrators and other illicit traffic.

Even factoring in our country's superior technology, people who advocate complete border closures for the US have absolutely no idea on:

1. How much military manpower this will require (in the millions),
2. How much money this will cost (in the trillions of trillions),
3. How much this will completely alter the character of the border states (armed camps), and
4. How this will change the character of our society (very militaristic).

Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 07:04 AM   #23
Dennis
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: November 23, 1998
Location: a small forest in Texas
Posts: 7,079
Skorzeny,
I don't know which border you formerly secured, but I was intimately familiar with small portions of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Between 1960 and 1976 I spent eleven years in Germany, nearly all within 1km of the border. I'm looking for a controlled border, not an Iron Curtain. We don't need mined strips, tank traps, sensor-triggered shotgun shells, etc.

On June 5, 2000, I suggested a method to close our U.S/Mexico border. This was before the Mexican military (or police or whoever) began coming to America to shoot (or shoot at) Americans.

The border should have two features:

1) The border should be so obviously impenetrable that nobody tries to cross the border illegally. NOBODY should get shot—not Americans, the "honest" illegals, the dope smugglers, the Mexican federales (or whomever)....

2) A safe, easy, and cheap method of facilitating border crossing for workers and tourists should be implemented. We don't need people dying in our deserts simply because they were starving in Mexico and are willing to work for a better life.

Here was my plan (somewhat edited), two years ago. I called it the Texas Two-Step:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...exico+military

Step One

Secure the border.

The U.S. government should create a training zone for our military from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean with 8 ft chain link fences on each side.
Compensate land owners in a fair manner - it's cheaper than foreign aid, or the threat to American sovereignty and American lives (and property).

In that zone, conduct armed military maneuvers of all kinds (foot marches, mechanized rifle, armor, airborne assault, whatever it takes) to secure our border. Make it part of basic training. Lock and load.

The U.S./Mexico border is 2013 miles long.

Let’s say four troops can secure at least 528 feet of the border (on average), or about 10 groups of four per mile. That’s 40 troops per mile x 4 shifts x 2013 miles = 322,080 troops.
(That’s a warm body, 24/7, for every 132 feet of border.)

The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard (note the name..."Coast" and "Guard") should prevent unauthorized traffic around our border (in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean).

Just do it! Create a “sterile” strip between us and those who attack Americans.

Ensure cooperation between the military and local land owners to provide access as
needed.

Ensure cooperation between the military and the law enforcement people of every
stripe currently along the border.

Ensure cooperation between U.S. military bases near the border.
“You want close air support? Duck!”
“I love the smell of napalm in the morning!”

Put signs in Spanish and English on the fences.
- On the fence facing Mexico, “If you are found between the border and this fence, you die without warning.”
- On the fence facing the U.S., “Military training area. If you are found here, and survive, you will be sentenced to a $10,000 fine and ten years in prison.”

And mean it!

Step Two

Permit legal immigration for those who come to work. All we have to do is close off and control our border the same as the Canadians have against Americans at the Rainbow Bridge, Niagara Falls, NY.
----------------

A major objective is to reduce shootings to zero!

If we declared the border zone to be an active military exercise zone, nobody, but NObody would be so dumb as to challenge a G.I. with a gun (and a radio) on every 130-odd linear feet of border.

The posse comitatus act would have nothing to do with it. We can establish an "exercise area" anyplace we want.

I also want the "illegals" to be legalized so they don't have to be afraid to work in America and they can earn an honest wage without fear of INS raids in the workplace or their homes.

If we take care of those honest folks who want to work, the infiltrators would be the bad guys. Treat them like any American who becomes the target of the ATF. Apprehend infiltrators. If they use force, respond accordingly.
- - - - -

Closing the Canadian border may be tougher because of its length and remoteness. But I can answer your questions as they pertain to the U.S./Mexico border.

"1. How much military manpower this will require (in the millions),
2. How much money this will cost (in the trillions of trillions)"

A third of a million troops should do it. Furthermore, most of the manpower and necessary support already exist. Troops can march along the border with much the same cadence as at Fort Leonard Wood or (probably) a hundred other God-forsaken training areas similar to our border area. The Navy and the Coast Guard can patrol waters near the border just as well as Charleston harbor.

We already spend millions (or billions) to have troops "play in the dirt." That dirt could be in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California nearly as easily as in elsewhere in the United States (and a lot cheaper than in Kosovo, as an example).
The key is to relocate current resources as much as possible, not create new expenses.

"3. How much this will completely alter the character of the border states (armed camps), and
4. How this will change the character of our society (very militaristic)."

Land along the border would be lost for civilian use. Compensate the owners sufficiently. Think of it as "foreign aid" for Americans (for a change).

Some changes would be for the better. Ranchers no longer would have the stock killed (for food or simple pleasure) or their property destroyed (e.g. breaking irrigation pipes for water to stay alive, using line shacks as motels and then burning them out of stupidity, burglaries, etc.).

Wouldn't it be nice to provide Americans living along the border with a typical American environment rather than one similar to war-torn Beirut?

Oh, and as far as "militaristic" goes, I agree. But I consider that preferable to INS raids in restaurants during lunch and the crime we facilitate and create with our current hypocritical approach to border security. All in all, both honest Americans and honest Mexicans would be safer with no loss in freedom or Liberty and little increase in expense (by re-allocation of our current resources).
Dennis is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 10:20 AM   #24
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
Quote:
The U.S./Mexico border is 2013 miles long.

Let’s say four troops can secure at least 528 feet of the border (on average), or about 10 groups of four per mile. That’s 40 troops per mile x 4 shifts x 2013 miles = 322,080 troops.
(That’s a warm body, 24/7, for every 132 feet of border.)
But didn't you just say the border should be obviously impenetrable? You want a dozen or two soldiers to go up against a helo with improvised or stolen/bought weapons?

We need a canal down there. With sharks, crocs, stonefish, piranha, water moccasins, and other assorted nasty creatures.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020619-504434.htm
tyme is offline  
Old June 19, 2002, 11:09 AM   #25
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Dennis:
Quote:
the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain
I fully agree that such is not what you advocate. However, in that case, the Soviets and Warsaw Pact "helped out" with the other side of the border, didn't they? They didn't exactly allow the mass of humanity to rush the borders from their side (well, until the "Fall") without trying the patience of the Pact machine gunners, did they? That's not the kind of cooperation that we are going to get from Mexico, is it?
Quote:
Let’s say four troops can secure at least 528 feet of the border (on average), or about 10 groups of four per mile. That’s 40 troops per mile x 4 shifts x 2013 miles = 322,080 troops.
(That’s a warm body, 24/7, for every 132 feet of border.)
Even assuming that your assumption of 4 troops per 528 feet of border is correct, you left out the following factors:

1. 322,080 "shooting" troops require command and supporting personnel - add x2 to x5 manpower depending on conditions.

2. 322,080 "shooting" troops require infrastructure (housing, depots, etc.), which further increases manpower requirements and costs - particularly for those poor souls "guarding" the desert and other harsh areas.

3. A linear defense of 1 person thick is inevitably going to have holes - a defense in depth would require yet more infrastructure and manpower (again to a depth of 5-25 KM in my experience).

4. The US-Mexican (or for that matter, US-Canadian border) is not a flat, straight 2013 mile-long area. Changes in elevation and other physical varieties would increase the needs further.

5. At least double the number to include the US-Canadian border.
Quote:
Oh, and as far as "militaristic" goes, I agree. But I consider that preferable to INS raids in restaurants during lunch and the crime we facilitate and create with our current hypocritical approach to border security. All in all, both honest Americans and honest Mexicans would be safer with no loss in freedom or Liberty and little increase in expense (by re-allocation of our current resources).
Uh, how do our society becoming more "militaristic" and "no loss in freedom or Liberty" coincide?

BTW, to reiterate, you assume that we can close the border with a single line of troops (1 soldier for every 132 feet). That is simply not so. Factoring in the above and other things I didn't think of immediately, the actual total can be ten times as high (over 6 million soldiers, to include the US-Canada border) and it still wouldn't be "airtight," not to mention the havoc having that kind of military presence along the borders is going to have on our force-projection capability and on the state of our society.

Closed borders are for the likes of Soviet Union, former East Germany and North Korea. It's not for a free society like ours.

Skorzeny
__________________
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12378 seconds with 7 queries