• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do we need more border patrole agents?

Evidently yes, my assumptions were wrong. But I still wonder if we would be willing to use lethal force, drone or human, on our border with Mexico. I'm not saying we can't. I'm not saying we woon't. But I think I would rather we didn't. I'll have to mention my concerns to Mr. O. next time I lunch with him:roll:


Apparently your assumptions are wrong about who we drone. I saw somebody talking about it the other day on TV--maybe on Charlie Rose. If a primary target has any interactions with others while in surveillance, apparently the others are deemed terrorists and are targeted too without bothering to figure out who the person is or the nature of the contact. We saw them talking to the person we are going to zap so they get zapped too.
 
I guess Predators come in multiple flavors. Predator Drones I learn more things I don't need to know every day:)




I got no problem with good faith questions. Of course with Tererun, going all "you have to kill a few" you were probably right in asking after all.

I disagree with Tererun on that. I don't think we need to be killing people for a felony that is not a threat to life or property. Goes against everything we believe in. Another thing is when and if they were caught, they should immediately be handed over to civilian authority and not left to the military. The military are not police and should not be expected to use lethal force outside of defense, or detain prisoners under any circumstance. They are not trained police officers and should not be expected to act as such.

I have no problem with using military assets to secure the boarder as long as it is implemented under the watchful eye of civilian law enforcement.

I have been in both positions, military and civilian law enforcement. Trust me when I say you do not want to leave this in the hands of the military alone. This is not a war or invasion.

Apology to Tererun with the Moot mix up.
 
Here we go. WASP III and a measly $49K instead of $20M for the Predator.
 
Evidently yes, my assumptions were wrong. But I still wonder if we would be willing to use lethal force, drone or human, on our border with Mexico. I'm not saying we can't. I'm not saying we woon't. But I think I would rather we didn't. I'll have to mention my concerns to Mr. O. next time I lunch with him:roll:

If we do, the bodies will be stored in Eric Holder's safe. Nothing would surprise me anymore now that we live in a world where we keep electing people who are master manipulators with zero principles in their toolbox.
 
You mean we had a choice? I voted for Johnson but you know how that went. We had a choice of crook A or crook B.

Wonder how that would work out during crop picking season? Think white boys will sign up to pick berries? I did it when I was around 12 - was pretty hard work.





If we do, the bodies will be stored in Eric Holder's safe. Nothing would surprise me anymore now that we live in a world where we keep electing people who are master manipulators with zero principles in their toolbox.
 
Go to that WASP link and you'll see we have plenty of unmanned fighters already. Or are you referring to when the aircraft will make the kill decision?



I figure unmanned fighters are in the not to distant future as well.
 
Go to that WASP link and you'll see we have plenty of unmanned fighters already. Or are you referring to when the aircraft will make the kill decision?

Yea I am talki air superiority fighters, bombers etc.
 
The border is not wide open at this point in time because the government just needs a few good ideas on how to secure it. The border is wide open because the special interests that our politicians represent want the border wide open.

Our elected representatives no longer represent us nor do they care what is good for the country. That is the reality that we are now faced with.

It's difficult for Americans to get your mind around that because it seemed to happen so fast, but there is no other way to explain the disconnect between Washington and the United States.
 
Last edited:
Then you ruin a good idea with overtly militant illegal crap. Oy.

Like I said, I can either go with the securing of the border, or go with the who the hell cares attitude. But realistically if people want a secure border then the half assed solution of having border guards who do not actually fight on the border is really wasteful. They simply catch people only to toss them back to try and cross again. Even if we add enough border guards to have one every 500 yards it doesn't matter much. 500 yards is a really long golf hole. Go out to a golf course and imagine trying to stop 4 or 5 people, or more, from crossing it without shooting people. They are going to cross, even with a wall as an obstacle to delay them.

I am being realistic in the fact that if your goal is to have the border secured with very few people being able to cross then the military with deadly force is the way to go. I am not sure what you expect the military to do if they don't shoot at people. These are not police, these are soldiers. Police are a deterrent to some crime, but they do not stop it. You are also looking at this from a POV that is a little bit off. This is not what would prevent you from trying to cross the border, this is what is going to prevent a bunch of poor people and perhaps drug runners from crossing the border. A little bit of penalty time in a jail cell and a trip back to mexico to try again is not a terribly large deterrent. Yes, to you it might be because you have stuff to lose and no real gain to be made from doing it. But then you probably would not be trying to escape to a better place or run drugs over the border for some cash anyway. You have too much to lose, and they do not have a lot to lose.

For the most part the military doesn't even have to do much aside from be the military on the border. It is one thing to have the chance to try and outrun some border patrol agents or get caught, it is another to realize you are at least going to have to dodge some bullets coming from some trained soldiers. That is not to mention the deterrent to drug violence spilling over from the border. It is one thing for a gang to outgun the cops and to shoot up a couple of police officers, but to do that to a military that is going to kick your ass is completely different.

This would accomplish the goal of making it extremely hard to cross the border, and actually cheapen the efforts to secure the border. I have watched the half assed method not work for years on securing the border, and we need to save some money and stop wasting it on efforts that simply do not work. At the very least I can see the military actually doing something for america by securing our borders from people trying to enter. If they did kill someone it would be on the border and the people would actually be trying to get into america. We are blowing up innocent people in foreign places who couldn't get here if they wanted to. This is actually one of the jobs our military was designed to do well.
 
Are we allowed to shoot unarmed civilians? Isn't there some global standard for use of lethal force? I'm just asking. I'm not taking a position.

I am not talking about taking drones into the mexican areas and droning people like we do in the middle east. I am talking about having a line where you are warned not to cross and then if you continue to advance deadly force could be used against people. before you get into it, I know that some military bases have such lines here in america, especially after 9/11. They do not shoot you the moment you get there, but there is a point where you can get shot for continuing to try and enter. They could easily use drones, jets, and helicopters to monitor approach, and to dispatch a much more mobile response to areas. if there was ever a heavily armed attempt like is said drug cartels may do or be doing they would certainly be able to respond to it much better than a force like border patrol who would not be initially prepared to deal with an assault.

This doesn't have to be an out of control military operation where we are slaughtering mexicans. There may be an initial time of a few deaths because people crossing might test the resolve of the military to shoot. I cannot say that it would be without deaths as to back up force you have to be willing to use it. I am just saying that a truely secured border would be much better accomplished through a military presence to secure it. It would also be cheaper, and a far better use for our military than foreign wars.

if people do not want to go this route perhaps they should rethink their immigration stance because this is what a secure border involves and if that bothers you then maybe a secure border is not the solution you are looking for. Paying people money to pretend to secure the border and not be willing to use deadly force to secure it only means the desperate or greedy people who try and cross it face little real consequence for making the attempt. So why not try crossing if you can make it since you get your reward if you make it, and you just a bit banged up and can try again if you do not.
 
You mean we had a choice? I voted for Johnson but you know how that went. We had a choice of crook A or crook B.

Wonder how that would work out during crop picking season? Think white boys will sign up to pick berries? I did it when I was around 12 - was pretty hard work.

That's why you cut welfare in Detroit and advertise those jobs heck you can even give then a ride on Amtrak no more of this sitting on government benifiets waiting for a job to come to your area you go to the job.
 
I understand. We'd basically create a bunch of new small towns with their portion of the border (whatevers) as customers. It is a long border though and this will take many years. It sure would be cheaper and easier to issue national ID cards and deny all service to anyone without one (or a passport and visa). I really feel we're trying to do this the hard and expensive way and I think of how the powers that be have avoided this for generations. Did/do they know something we don't?

That is a different solution to making a secure border. Maybe people really do not want a "secure" border and simply want restrictions on what would be visitors get from america. If that is the case then we should move towrds something like that which allows border crossing, but restricts your ability to stay. Of course, that will also lead to the possibility of someone using mexico to sneak contraband over to the US like drugs or weapons.

Also, in regards to the time it would take to make these towns it would take some time. The military can set up temporary operation centers because that is something they have to do. They also have engineer squads who can make the start of housing units for troops. They are well equipped to start the initial setup. It is also good that they can do this because if done right they can chose strategic positions rather than arbitrary positions for the mission to secure the border. Considering the border security would be an ongoing part of operations of america unless we are planning to absorb mexico, it wouldn't make much difference as they would be mostly permanent fixtures anyway.

being there is no real hard border set up in a lot of these places we could plan it to fit what we want it to do. We could customize it to a continually operating purpose and maybe even have it so border towns can have easy and efficient crossing areas where needed. I do not know the full scope of it, but this is something our military can use it's budget to do, and according to many people it would make america safer.
 
The border is not wide open at this point in time because the government just needs a few good ideas on how to secure it. The border is wide open because the special interests that our politicians represent want the border wide open.

Our elected representatives no longer represent us nor do they care what is good for the country. That is the reality that we are now faced with.

It's difficult for Americans to get your mind around that because it seemed to happen so fast, but there is no other way to explain the disconnect between Washington and the United States.

Oh, I can agree there is a distinct difference between what is sold to the american people and what washington is actually doing. One of the reasons i brought this up is because even if you don't want the military to be killing people on the border, they are the ones tasked with securing our borders so they should have been used over creating a new border patrol which just makes more money and does not accomplish the goals set to it. I am quite aware there are many reasons to have a permeable border with mexico. One of which is it is a great place to get south american drugs across the border. It is a good way to get cheapo labor into the US that you do not have to pay taxes on or cover with healthcare. there are certainly reasons for the half assed efforts we get in securing our borders.

I say it because i live under the hope that some people will see the idea and perhaps realize we are not told what the actual purpose is for the present situation, and that there may be better solutions to fight for. That and i like to read myself complaining.
 
That's why you cut welfare in Detroit and advertise those jobs heck you can even give then a ride on Amtrak no more of this sitting on government benifiets waiting for a job to come to your area you go to the job.

there are plenty of local poor people who won't do the job. Why do you think bussing people in from detroit will get them to work?
 
I am not talking about taking drones into the mexican areas and droning people like we do in the middle east. I am talking about having a line where you are warned not to cross and then if you continue to advance deadly force could be used against people. before you get into it, I know that some military bases have such lines here in america, especially after 9/11. They do not shoot you the moment you get there, but there is a point where you can get shot for continuing to try and enter. They could easily use drones, jets, and helicopters to monitor approach, and to dispatch a much more mobile response to areas. if there was ever a heavily armed attempt like is said drug cartels may do or be doing they would certainly be able to respond to it much better than a force like border patrol who would not be initially prepared to deal with an assault.

This doesn't have to be an out of control military operation where we are slaughtering mexicans. There may be an initial time of a few deaths because people crossing might test the resolve of the military to shoot. I cannot say that it would be without deaths as to back up force you have to be willing to use it. I am just saying that a truely secured border would be much better accomplished through a military presence to secure it. It would also be cheaper, and a far better use for our military than foreign wars.

if people do not want to go this route perhaps they should rethink their immigration stance because this is what a secure border involves and if that bothers you then maybe a secure border is not the solution you are looking for. Paying people money to pretend to secure the border and not be willing to use deadly force to secure it only means the desperate or greedy people who try and cross it face little real consequence for making the attempt. So why not try crossing if you can make it since you get your reward if you make it, and you just a bit banged up and can try again if you do not.

No this is not what a secure border has to involve. It is haphazard and given by someone that has no experience with either the military or police. Does not have an understanding of either and is trying to say it's all or nothing. That is absolute crap.

The reason it is so hard to stop them is low numbers of border patrol staff with not the greatest budget. Your solution has some merit, but the all or nothing is not the answer. We might as well be North Korea.

Sorry no dice.

This is a better idea and we don't have to kill anyone. http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...e-border-patrole-agents-3.html#post1061974255
 
No this is not what a secure border has to involve. It is haphazard and given by someone that has no experience with either the military or police. Does not have an understanding of either and is trying to say it's all or nothing. That is absolute crap.

The reason it is so hard to stop them is low numbers of border patrol staff with not the greatest budget. Your solution has some merit, but the all or nothing is not the answer. We might as well be North Korea.

Sorry no dice.

This is a better idea and we don't have to kill anyone. http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...e-border-patrole-agents-3.html#post1061974255

So you just want to make a pretend effort like you are actually doing something and spend a whole lot of money pretending to do something instead of actually doing it. I just say drop the pretense. It is way to expensive. Either do nothing and save the money to spend elsewhere, or do it right. Spending a lot of money in some convoluted hope that your efforts will keep out the people we know it is not keeping out is pointless when you want to accomplish something aside from pretending you are actually fighting against illegal immigrants. Throwing more impotent guards on the border in hopes it will make the mexicans think twice before crossing because some guard might see them and make them go back to start is not stopping them. If you put a wall there they will just climb it. They have nothing to lose for the attempt.
 
I got no problem with good faith questions. Of course with Tererun, going all "you have to kill a few" you were probably right in asking after all.

I disagree with Tererun on that. I don't think we need to be killing people for a felony that is not a threat to life or property. Goes against everything we believe in. Another thing is when and if they were caught, they should immediately be handed over to civilian authority and not left to the military. The military are not police and should not be expected to use lethal force outside of defense, or detain prisoners under any circumstance. They are not trained police officers and should not be expected to act as such.

I have no problem with using military assets to secure the boarder as long as it is implemented under the watchful eye of civilian law enforcement.

I have been in both positions, military and civilian law enforcement. Trust me when I say you do not want to leave this in the hands of the military alone. This is not a war or invasion.

Apology to Tererun with the Moot mix up.

Really this is not stopping them. If you put some military there and do not allow them to fire on a person at a certain line it is pointless. Eventually they are going to figure out the army has been informed not to shoot them. Once they know the army is bluffing with their guns they will just run for it anyway. No, if you are going to put the army there you have to be ready to use them and shoot at people. Otherwise you just have a bunch of guys running around with guns who cannot do anything. If that is what you want screw protecting the border. Lock down the jobs and benefits and treat the mexicans all like foreign visitors.

If what you want is to bounce back the people then focus on that. Crack down on employment of illegals. Do not give government benefits to illegals. Just go with an approved visa system for those who want to enter the workforce and be a citizen. For those independently wealthy people who want to live here you just take their money in commerce. Once they are out of money go home and get a job and come back. Why bother busting them at that point if they are not doing anything wrong? It is just a big expense to us to send them back to start when we are not going to really do much about them coming back. If you want to do something then fine them for being here without a permit. Give them a ticket and forget the rest of the expense of playing the deportation game.
 
So you just want to make a pretend effort like you are actually doing something and spend a whole lot of money pretending to do something instead of actually doing it.

Where are the stats to back up your "all or nothing" proposal? What is it based on? What would be the ramifications on this countrys economy and our relations with Mexico if we just started shooting Mexican nationals? What would be the ramifications if we started using armed tanks and predators on our unprotected Southern border?

You have thought nothing through and have no clue as to how such an asinine plan would play out. Then you say it's either that or let em in. No.

I just say drop the pretense. It is way to expensive. Either do nothing and save the money to spend elsewhere, or do it right. Spending a lot of money in some convoluted hope that your efforts will keep out the people we know it is not keeping out is pointless when you want to accomplish something aside from pretending you are actually fighting against illegal immigrants. Throwing more impotent guards on the border in hopes it will make the mexicans think twice before crossing because some guard might see them and make them go back to start is not stopping them. If you put a wall there they will just climb it. They have nothing to lose for the attempt.

No we don't know if what I suggested would work or not as it has not been tried, period. You can dissmiss it in favor of your amature hour plan but as I have shown you have no idea what the ramifications would be.

As I also mentioned you have no military training or experience, none. No police training or experience and have no idea how this would or would not work or the costs. You are making assumptions based on amateurish deterrent. Then you try and give an all or nothing excuse which is nothing more than a partisan attempt to basically let em in or kill them.

As I said we are not North Korea.
 
Where are the stats to back up your "all or nothing" proposal? What is it based on?

We see the effects of border patrol without securing the border right here and right now. We already have it. people end up crossing the border every day. We ship them back and they come back over again. They are not scared of the border patrol, they are scared of being caught and having to go back to start. It is not stopping them. If you want to stop them, you can put a end to most of their efforts. Let us not waste the money on half assed ineffective efforts. if you do not want them here then lock down what they come here for. No more jobs and no more benefits. Then all we have is a bunch of visitors. You cannot vote. you cannot have your kids go to school. You cannot work. You pay cash for medical care. You do not get welfare. Your drivers license should be valid from your home country. You cannot register a car, and you do not get any mail here at a residence. You cannot set up utilities either. In other words you are on vacation here and you are just a visitor. use the money we would spend on border guards to crack down on hiring illegals.
What would be the ramifications on this countrys economy and our relations with Mexico if we just started shooting Mexican nationals? What would be the ramifications if we started using armed tanks and predators on our unprotected Southern border?

Nice attempt to leave out the only shooting the ones crossing the border. It is not like I am saying we should fly over mexico city and start doing signature strikes. It is pretty damned easy to see if someone walks up to the border, warn them of the danger, and then shoot them if they cross the line. They are not staying mexican nationals if they are trying to get into our country illegally.
You have thought nothing through and have no clue as to how such an asinine plan would play out. Then you say it's either that or let em in. No.

Again, you are trying to spend a lot of money doing very little. Just say you do not want a secure border.


No we don't know if what I suggested would work or not as it has not been tried, period. You can dissmiss it in favor of your amature hour plan but as I have shown you have no idea what the ramifications would be.

It has been going on for a while. half assed border patrols are not stopping people from crossing. The new immigration bill puts one agent per 500 yards. That is an agent who you say should not be allowed to shoot anyone crossing. Go out on a golf course and find a 4-500 yard hole. Think about you having to protect that from a bunch of people trying to cross without any fatal weapons. This is not failing because we have not put enough effort into it. This is failing because you cannot accomplish it with the attitude you are talking about.
As I also mentioned you have no military training or experience, none. No police training or experience and have no idea how this would or would not work or the costs. You are making assumptions based on amateurish deterrent. Then you try and give an all or nothing excuse which is nothing more than a partisan attempt to basically let em in or kill them.

As I said we are not North Korea.

Then don't bother with the expense of something you are not getting accomplished anyway. Spend it on a valid worker database, or other methods of keeping illegals from setting up a permanent residence. We do not need to pay some dufuses to roam around the desert playing grab ass with the couple of border jumpers they catch while all the other ones just wander on by.
 
You mean we had a choice? I voted for Johnson but you know how that went. We had a choice of crook A or crook B.

Wonder how that would work out during crop picking season? Think white boys will sign up to pick berries? I did it when I was around 12 - was pretty hard work.

Doubt it was worse than pulling tobacco which I did some too. Awful work.
 
Doubt it was worse than pulling tobacco which I did some too. Awful work.

Heya Fisher :2wave: .....Did some of that too, when I was down in Tenn. We were paid cash. Good day of work tho. Plus one got Paid well. Course that's going back about 30 years.

What do you think about the Guard or Reserve pulling Border Patrols? Always rotating in with the training like they do.
 
Heya Fisher :2wave: .....Did some of that too, when I was down in Tenn. We were paid cash. Good day of work tho. Plus one got Paid well. Course that's going back about 30 years.

What do you think about the Guard or Reserve pulling Border Patrols? Always rotating in with the training like they do.

They have done it before. I have no problem with it. I am not sure the cost-benefit of moving those folks in and out as opposed to just more border patrol though. Have never seen numbers on the cost.
 
They have done it before. I have no problem with it. I am not sure the cost-benefit of moving those folks in and out as opposed to just more border patrol though. Have never seen numbers on the cost.

Don't they have go and train for a month in the Summer? I was under the impression some of them were going for training outside their own state at times anyways. I don't know how they could relate the cost. Especially since they have not determined what the real numbers for Border Security thru the LE's will be.
 
Don't they have go and train for a month in the Summer? I was under the impression some of them were going for training outside their own state at times anyways. I don't know how they could relate the cost. Especially since they have not determined what the real numbers for Border Security thru the LE's will be.

Yes, but it might be better to use border state Guard units as opposed to moving people back and forth from Maine or Ohio or wherever. It would be the payroll equipment costs of X numbers of additional BP vs. the transportation and lodging cost of Guard. There are arguments for or against always having fresh eyes of NG as opposed to having experienced people who can build long-term knowledge of patterns of attempted entrants.
 
Back
Top Bottom