Replies

Thank you for answering. Your answer is illogical, and also violates the norms of human behavior. Let me deal with the “illogical” part, because that is factual in nature.

You say first that we can “shoot any illegal invader attempting to violate the border of the USA.”

That can mean two things. The first would be that we can shoot them BEFORE they cross over the line, if we see them and think they are TRYING to. Which would mean you are claiming the right for americans to shoot mexicans on mexican soil, if we think they are trying to cross our border. The absurdity of that concept is so painfully obvious that I will assume you didn’t mean that. If you did, I’m sorry but there’s no hope for you.

The second would be that we can shoot them after they have crossed the border, and are standing on American soil.

EXCEPT that, in your next sentence, you say “if an illegal is already IN America, they should be immediately deported”. Well, if the illegal crossed the border, they are IN America. So first you said we could shoot them as soon as they were standing on our soil, and then you said we shouldn’t shoot them, but deport them. Which is it?

Or do you believe we can shoot them within X feet of the border, but should deport them if they are further from the border?

Or do you believe we can shoot them when they FIRST enter, but if they have been here more than X minutes, we can no longer shoot them but have to deport them?

It simply makes no sense to say we can shoot them when they first cross, but not if we catch them later. What if we detect a crossing with our security, and we catch them 20 miles away in a van? Do we shoot them, or deport them?

As for the norms of human behavior — no respected country in this world shoots people who are simply illegally crossing their border, accept in times of war. No country is going to support such a policy by other countries against their citizens.

If you want to argue that point, start with a single referenced citation of U.S. or international law which would support your position, or cite any developed country which has a policy of shooting anybody who crosses their borders. If you have none, you are just blowing smoke. Since you claim that it is “OK, alright, and desirable”, it is your job to find evidence for that claim. The lack of evidence is what shows that it is NOT OK, it is NOT alright, and it is not desirable.

To make that clear, I can’t find the immigration laws of a hundred countries to show that they DON’T shoot illegals. I did a google search on “countries that kill illegals”, and there were no hits for countries that actually do so.

You could prove your side by finding ONE developed country that has the policy. Otherwise, it’s just your warped opinion.

I will note two things in support of my argument. Our constitution grants all humanity certain rights, including the right to life. We also have the 8th amendment, against cruel or unusual punishment. Our constitution also grants the right to a trial before sentence is passed.

Our jurisprudence allows for police to use deadly force, but only in strictly defined situations where there is a clear and imminent threat of harm. And our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of our rights, and our jurisprudence, extends to all humans within our borders, including those here illegally.

We do have the death penalty in this country, but only for a small set of heinous crimes, mostly involving murder, and only after both a court finding, and a lengthy appeals process. We are very serious about NOT killing people until we are absolutely sure they deserve it, or when it is absolutely necessary because of an immienent threat.

There is no way that a person crossing our border would meet ANY of the definitions under which our laws or our constitution allow for the punishment of death. It is disporportionate to the crime, and an affront to the value and sanctity of human life.

That you would claim that it is desirable to kill a human being for trying to step over a line into our country shows a profound LACK of judgement and a profound lack of respect for the life that our Creator has given us, and the constitution which acknowledges life as a fundamental right not to be so lightly dismissed.

The standard for a military conflict is of course different, and if we were at war with Mexico, we could well have a shoot-on-crossing rule, although the rules of war would likely preclude using such an order to shoot clearly civilian targets, or to shoot troops who were crossing the border but in an act of surrender, in which case we would take them into custody.

But despite the effort of a few to confuse the issue, we aren’t talking about war, or a military base being defended, so that is a moot point.

I’m glad you had the courage to finally voice your opinion, and while I respect you for that courage, I find your position indefensible, without logical or legal merit, and a sign of a deficiency in judgement.

I can imagine cases where I would support shooting someone crossing the border — like if there was a mob crossing at once, and some of them appeared to be armed, and they were running at the border agents, the agents would have to shoot and hope it stopped the mob from continuing. But that would be a matter of imminent threat, and again moot to the argument at hand.

And of course, I think our border agents should be allowed to shoot anybody, on EITHER side of the border, that fires a shot at them. But that is another different argument, and therefore again moot for this discussion.

Dport them, secure the border, throw them in jail — but you can’t just kill people for entering your country. It’s uncivilized.