- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
It seems to mention Non-lethal arms to them. I would have to imagine that to use the full capabilities of a drone would be the best way to deliver a non-lethal payload. A lot of what you highlighted seems to be drone capabilities that allow it to be an accurate delivery system for lethal munitions. Non-lethal munitions tend to need to be very accurate because it is hard to get the "kill" zone of a lethal device to match an effective zone for a nonlethal device. Plus the drone capabilities which let it spot hidden soldiers are probably fvery useful for helping them spot hidden border jumpers. Drones would be extremely valuable for the purposes of spotting border jumpers. If they are loaded with non-lethal munitions then the whole argument about them being used to kill border jumpers goes out the window.
The only argument I have with a non-lethal solution is you have to punish them or they will try again, and then we have to house them in our prison system and pay a lot of money for them. If we were going to try and secure the border it would be much better to use a lethal deterrent. If we are going to go spend all that money I would rather not give more to the prisoner for profit system and put the money into better defined systems of identification for employment and residence establishment and eliminate the ability of illegals to get services and establish a permanent residence while allowing them to remain and spend money.
Heya TR. :2wave: Yes.....it is exactly just like what is used for any payloads. Which is why the Atlantic is reporting on it.
(We assessed the effectiveness of the CBP's recent expansion of its resources on the border last month. There hasn't been a correlation between increased resources and more apprehensions.).....snip~
I think it could be argued that DHS wouldn't come clean concerning any use with any type of payload, anyways. I would also have to agree with what you stated with what I bolded. Good Post TR!Informative & Creative
I would not want to see DHS, INS/ICE, or Border Patrol using non-lethal armaments on these drones. To be truly effective they need LETHAL munitions and we should leave the dead bodies out in the desert as a warning to future illegals.
I would not want to see DHS, INS/ICE, or Border Patrol using non-lethal armaments on these drones. To be truly effective they need LETHAL munitions and we should leave the dead bodies out in the desert as a warning to future illegals.
That might be effective. It is, however, medieval, and I'd like to think, as civilized people, that we're a little beyond leaving corpses to the buzzards. I mean, even Neanderthal buried his dead.
Given all the hubub over the cost of securing the border, I'm starting to lean toward just mining the damn thing.
Well, MMC, I said that somewhat, somewhat tongue in cheek. Mining would be effective, but incredibly inhuman. I'm just frustrated that such a simple thing as border security to maintain sovereignty causes so much angst and inaction. This should be a non-partisan issue, and I think it is. I'm going to look for some polls on this. Must be a bunch of them.What will that do for the Tunnels they are now running underneath? Also for miles and to even drive vehicles thru?
Here's a Politico report on a recent poll: Poll: Border security a top priority - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com
It should be broken into two parts, with the border fixed before immigrant status is even discussed. Tying the two together is disingenuous - they are two separate problems as we learned in 1986.Heya Humbolt. :2wave: Yeah the House says their version will be about the Border. The Senate bill they say is DOA. Sunday I was listening to one of the Heads of the Committees in the House. He said Border Security before Amnesty. Then he talk about E verify and then Student Visas, Work Visas, and Obama's condition now for same sex couples to be added to the Bill. Which he says all of these have to be addressed before Any talk of Amnesty.
It should be broken into two parts, with the border fixed before immigrant status is even discussed. Tying the two together is disingenuous - they are two separate problems as we learned in 1986.
Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.Why separate them? The bill in its current state only allows green cards to go our to illegal Immigrants after the Border Security features have been implemented. It kills two birds with one stone. Breaking apart the bill just reduces the chance of anything getting done. That's not even to go into the fact that Net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates in the negatives....
Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.
Until net illegal immigration is -11,000,000 or so, and there are sufficient security measures in place to keep it that way, no new immigration should be allowed.... Legal or Illegal.
America was built on Immigrants, and they are still a major drive in our economy. One of the parts of Immigration Reform is changing the system so that more high skilled Immigrants can get in, which would greatly benefit our economy. Why are so against Immigration?
That's exactly why I don't want it broken up, only half would get done. Everyone would OK Border Security and when it came to "Amnesty" House Republicans would say "We're not going to discuss that, its not happening" . I hate it as much as you do, but you and I both know its true. Look, statistics show that we are deporting more people than ever, and net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates the negatives, as many are getting deported or leaving on their own. So, where exactly is the security problem?
America was built on Immigrants, and they are still a major drive in our economy. One of the parts of Immigration Reform is changing the system so that more high skilled Immigrants can get in, which would greatly benefit our economy. Why are so against Immigration?
The opposite of '86? I doubt it. There is nothing that has been done on our southern border which can't be undone simply by reducing manpower at the border. Legislation has proven ineffective and is ignored, and this is not partisan in nature. Bush dawdled and let things stand as they were intentionally. The two parties are way too busy vying for votes to effect a realistic solution. Stop the leaks, and then address the repairs.That's exactly why I don't want it broken up, only half would get done. Everyone would OK Border Security and when it came to "Amnesty" House Republicans would say "We're not going to discuss that, its not happening" . I hate it as much as you do, but you and I both know its true. Look, statistics show that we are deporting more people than ever, and net Illegal Immigration is 0, and according to some estimates the negatives, as many are getting deported or leaving on their own. So, where exactly is the security problem?
Why? Because such legislation always seems to end up with half not getting done. A law passed in Congress already exists which requires a border fence. The fence isn't built. It is possible to claim that because the border is not secure, we have an illegal immigration problem, and the two are therefore intimately entwined. They aren't. The border is not secure. Secure the border. Having done that, then we can talk about whatever just treatment can be determined for the illegals already here. I think the public would be more inclined to deal gently with such illegals with the assurance we won't have to address the issue again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?