I’m very much against illegal immigrants being in this Country and soaking up the wealth that that should be going to sincere citizens. It is especially dispicable that these people would have children just to enhance their take of the Nation’s wealth.
Having admitted the above , I have strong reservations against killing to prevent crossing the border; though criminal acts such as drug dealing is probably necessary. My thoughts go back to the days of the Berlin Wall. The Soviets(& all the guards) were shooting people who attempted to go over the wall from east to west. These were persons wanting the better life in West Berlin. I see the problem there as very much like our border situation. They shot people wanting out while we think of shooting people coming in. Either is a tragic situation blameable on the governments that care less about welfare of humans than alleviating conditions which would stop such situations.
But let me ask this: why is it a-ok for "undocumented guest workers" to spit in the face of federal laws but woe unto those Citizens who would assert that the government *can't* legitimately do anything it wants to. As an example, and I realize I'm changing the scope a bit (but the general principal remains), my State's Constitution flatly forbids any law "abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense [...]" yet there is a State Statute which prohibits firearms on university campuses. {Similarly the city/county/state courthouses post big "no weapons" signs.}
Any time I ask a public official about this contradiction I get the run-around... and often law-enforcement types will cite the prohibitions in Courthouses as an "accepted exception;" but if there are exceptions to the supreme law of the land, and the state *CAN* do what is flatly forbidden, then you and I have no recourse or protection under [any/the] Constitution *OR* the law.