If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?

[BT]

Why are we better off allowing immigrants to bypass legal channels to gain entry into this country? That is the issue.

You say they come here illegally because legal entry is too onerous. Fine reform legal entry.

But in the meantime let's not make those who come here illeaglly some kind of saints.

They aren't.

They are cheaters.

[Universe Prince]

Why are we better off allowing immigrants to bypass legal channels to gain entry into this country? That is the issue.

On the contrary, the question we should be asking (and that I have been asking all along) is why are we better off with onerous legal burdens for people seeking legal entry into the U.S.? That is the issue.

You say they come here illegally because legal entry is too onerous. Fine reform legal entry.

Golly, you're smart. Why didn't I think of that. Oh, wait, I did.

But in the meantime let's not make those who come here illeaglly some kind of saints.

They aren't.

They are cheaters.

Who said they were saints? Fine, we can call them cheaters. Most of them are also people who are making the well being of their families a priority, and they are willing to work and work hard to that end. So why should they be punished with ridiculously labyrinthine laws just for wanting to move from there to here to find work? Maybe because my father had to move several times from one state to another to find work during his life, I just don't see why someone who wants to move from one place to another to work is something we should be trying to stop. And when millions of people find risking death in a desert preferable to the legal system, when what they want is not to violate anyone's rights but to work and make a living, I'd say that indicates there is something wrong with the legal system.

And while we're calling them cheaters, let's be clear about the "game". It's a "game" where the "rules" are severely stacked against the players, and can change at any time. And where failure can mean people, oneself and/or one's family members, suffer from lack of clothing, food and medicine. So why is it so upsetting that some people want to cheat? Seems quite understandable to me. On the other hand, thinking that to solve this problem we need to make the "rules" harder or even just more strictly enforced, that is the opposite of understandable. It makes no sense at all.

[BT]

So basically your position is if you don't agree with a law you have an obligation, no,  a right to break it.

And i guess with that display of civil disobedience, accepting consequences for your actions would be the righteous thing to do.

So let the illegals come in, and let those that get caught get deported.

And i believe that is the status quo.

So nothing changes.

 

[Plane]

If a terrorist were able to open a channel for importing lots o people into the US illeagally , resulting in a trebleing of the flow, would he have hurt us much?

[gipper]

I won't be specific as to techniques, partly because I don't really know. I can, however, offer some thoughts about possible terrorist strategy and our security responses to an organized terrorist threat and the likely freelance, loosely-affiliated cells that might spring up here and move to a drummer heard or imagined.

The first point to note is that we can withstand a lot. Witness 9-11 and before that the tumult of Vietnam, the sacrifices of WWII and the dislocations of the Great Depression. Nobody's going to take us down in a world as now configured. Thus, assuming a central intelligence ("al Qaeda Central," say, and bin Laden and Zawahiri) planning a true "war" on the US and the West, to the extent our defenses literally force them to take a "what opportunity offers" approach, we must assume that they would opt for a sustained campaign with a defined and achievable goal as their purpose. I will leave the details of that formulation to general discussion. I will note that one successful, spectacular, additional attack could send us reeling, but we'll get up and come back with renewed ferocity, and they know it. A kill-strike is beyond their capability, indeed anyone's as the world is now configured. One key is to line up in advance through diplomacy all "responsible parties," those with influence over terrorist policy and operations. As is now clear from events and hopefully is becoming clear from these thoughts, the emphasis going forward should be on US-smaller scale, pinpointed intelligence, military and law-enforcement strikes, and not on setting the fuse for a conflagration, if that can be avoided.

As to loosely-aligned cells, the danger they pose in a rational world (assuming they could not get true WMD materials without central, coordinated support) is similar to, but greater than judged by damage from an individual event, the curse of criminality we now deal with every day, and should be dealt with similarly: steeped up patrols, etc. in a security-conscious populace.

[Universe Prince]

So basically your position is if you don't agree with a law you have an obligation, no,  a right to break it.

What was that you were saying in another thread about "the old misstate my arguments and then attack them technique of discussion"? I don't believe I said anywhere that anyone had either an obligation or a right to break a law simply because one disagrees with it. I am pretty sure what I said was that some people trying to get around this particular set of "rules" in this particular "game" was understandable. Understandable is a far cry from an obligation or a right to disobey.

Stop trying so hard to ferret out hidden meanings that I'm not putting into my posts.

And i guess with that display of civil disobedience, accepting consequences for your actions would be the righteous thing to do.

So let the illegals come in, and let those that get caught get deported.

And i believe that is the status quo.

So nothing changes.

And start paying attention to what I do say. Let's see now, you have asserted that my ideas are unworkable because I want the whole rest of the world to move to the U.S., that my ideas are useless because I'm just supporting the status quo, and that I'm accusing people of bigotry for disagreeing with me. None of which is true in the least. The conclusion to which I am inexorably led is that you think my ideas are unworkable because you apparently don't know and don't give a damn what they actually are. So much easier to just make wild accusations, declare that your ideas are workable and mine are not, and then proclaim victory. By all means, have at it. No point in having a conversation if you refuse to participate. No point in typing more if you refuse to read it. I'm done.

[_JS]

Here here

The phrase is "hear, hear" unless Bt is a dog and you are calling him home.

And really Bt and Sirs, you attack Prince's argument, but is your argument anymore respectable?

In its most boiled down form, you are basically saying that where one is born (which no one has any control over) should be a limiting factor on one's life. After all, even in the rosiest scenarios, most of these people are unskilled and will be denied entry into the United States or at best allowed entry after more than a decade, which they cannot afford to wait so long.

So, it boils down to arbitrary national boundaries (from an historical perspective) and basically where one was born. Ultimately you two believe that should be a major deciding factor in one's life and you call Prince and my notion of open borders radical and unrealistic?

[sirs]

And really Bt and Sirs, you attack Prince's argument, but is your argument anymore respectable?

Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful.  Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated        

[_JS]

Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful.  Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated        

Yes, yes, the rule of law. Just because it is a law does not make it right Sirs.

Now answer the post I actually wrote and not the rubbish you wrote for yourself.

Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?

[Richpo64]

Why doesn't Mexico do something about the state of their economy in order to find work for it's citizens?

If we're losing all these jobs to Mexico, why aren't they filling them?

Also, the problem with our borders isn't just Mexicans coming in illegally. It's OTM's. We're finding people from all over the world are coming in through Mexico.

So we can't listen to their conversations, and we can't stop them from coming into the country illegally. In fact, we should make it easier.

Uh huh.

[BT]

Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?

Not necessarily where they are born, but based on citizenship, however that status was achieved.

You may think current regulations are onerous, they may be, i don't know. But to say that national borders should be as easy to cross as going from Georgia to Tennessee doesn't ring right either.


So what is the middle ground. What minimum standard s would you set for eligibility?

What other reforms would you propose?

[sirs]

Yea, the idea of supporting legal actions, while denouncing illegal actions is soooo disrespectful.  Yea, that Rule of Law thing is so overrated        

Yes, yes, the rule of law. Just because it is a law does not make it right Sirs.

Yea....and?  Strangely, I actually beleive there should be laws in place if you wish to come into this country, be it live or work.  Silly me, being supportive of National security & Economic stability

Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?

No, not "deserving" of special priveleges, simply lucky.  I'm thanking God on a daily basis for being born in this country, with its Constitution and Democratic rule of law we live under.  And of course it's the envy of those born in lesser, more poverty stricken countries.  It has very little to do with trying to make this a classwarfare kind of act (that you're trying to pull), and more so a geographic happenstance.  I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries.  But we neither have the resources or the economic structure to take in every poverty stricken soul across this globe.  We DO contribute the MOST amount of charitiable donations, incl foods, clothing, and $$$$ than any other nation.  We also provide a huge amount of Government $$$'s (i.e. tax dollars) to many of these same countries, so we're "giving" 2 fold.  So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate.  That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.  

One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration.  This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration.  A difference the size of the Grand Canyon

[Amianthus]

Yea....and?  Strangely, I actually beleive there should be laws in place if you wish to come into this country, be it live or work.  Silly me, being supportive of National security & Economic stability

Nobody was concerned about those before 1957?

[_JS]

Your argument, at its very base is that people deserve special priveleges based on where they are born. Correct?

Not necessarily where they are born, but based on citizenship, however that status was achieved.

You may think current regulations are onerous, they may be, i don't know. But to say that national borders should be as easy to cross as going from Georgia to Tennessee doesn't ring right either.


So what is the middle ground. What minimum standard s would you set for eligibility?

What other reforms would you propose?

Well, maybe it should be slightly easier than having to drive through Chattanooga

Ideally? I don't think one's place of birth should have any effect on what is available to them. I agree though that this is not a commonly held view, but equality is a big deal to me.

Minimum standards? I think that background checks would be fair and some sort of standards could be set for rejecting criminals who have not repaid their debt to society. Other than that, I don't really see a problem with setting up an agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States to allow any citizen in any of those three nations to travel freely between those countries. Anyone may live, work, and visit any place in any of those nations freely, without any undue process.

I know that many people scoff at such a thing, but Europeans do it and have overcome many of the arguments I've heard against it. Even Sirs great question of "what other country would be asked to produce documents in another language?" I answered readily that there are actually many countries that produce documents in multiple languages. In fact, you should check out Toronto's government.

I just don't see this mass catastrophe that many people predict but have very few actual facts to support.

[_JS]

No, not "deserving" of special priveleges, simply lucky.  I'm thanking God on a daily basis for being born in this country, with its Constitution and Democratic rule of law we live under.  And of course it's the envy of those born in lesser, more poverty stricken countries.  It has very little to do with trying to make this a classwarfare kind of act (that you're trying to pull), and more so a geographic happenstance.  I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries.  But we neither have the resources or the economic structure to take in every poverty stricken soul across this globe.  We DO contribute the MOST amount of charitiable donations, incl foods, clothing, and $$$$ than any other nation.  We also provide a huge amount of Government $$$'s (i.e. tax dollars) to many of these same countries, so we're "giving" 2 fold.  So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate.  That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.  

One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration.  This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration.  A difference the size of the Grand Canyon

"A class warfare kind of act"

Yet, in the sentence right before you talk about poverty stricken countries. Some of whom can thank United States policies for their very place in the world. But yeah, we better not discuss class...that would be bad.

I truely feel for those born in 3rd world countries.

Yeah you do.

So don't try to sit across from your keyboard, and infer that this Country or myself are trying to be greedy, self serving, and not wanting to help the less fortunate.

Heh. You said it, not me.

But this is your argument, not mine. Mine has nothing to do with the plight of third world countries. You're just making an argument and putting it in my mouth.

That's another all-too-frequent disingeneuous tactic used when the discussion of illegal immigration comes up.

Then don't do it.

One more time, this isn't an issue of being anti-immigration.  This is an issue of being anti ILLEGAL immigration.  A difference the size of the Grand Canyon

It isn't a Bantustan, it is really a different country!!!