Delete my comments, Chirol, and I’ll just post them on my own blog.
The discussion was about local or state approved volunteer self-organized militias for border control
Is not maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Republic an inherently governmental function?
The Federal Gov’t secures the border too well for lefties who want to grant amnesty to millions of illegals and register them to vote for Obama in 2012, while other Americans want their favorite Westphalian nation-state defended from invasion, and its sovereignty respected.
Border states could, if the failures of FedGov drove them to it, deploy State Defense Forces, State Guards, and Sheriff’s Posses to augment the Border Patrol, perhaps even Relieve In Place in some sectors. Such measures would be resisted by those who do not want the border secured, and the State and County volunteers derided as Dumbass amateurs
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 12 March 2010
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 12 March 2010
Israel controls its borders. They are willing to use deadly force against invaders and unwelcome border crossers at unauthorized border crossing points. An illegal border crosser of the United States border is guilty only of a misdemeanor.
By: Cannoneer No. 4 on 13 March 2010
Israel is also a tiny country with borders far easier to control. Moreover, there is no excuse for deadly force against peaceful immigrants who simply want a better life for themselves. That does not mean we should let them in. But deadly force is only justified for self defense and the only cases in which this would be legitimate on the border is against criminals and smugglers.
By: Chirol on 13 March 2010
Immigrants motivated by economics and quality of life are not invaders. If you think so then you need to go and study an English dictionary.
And if you believe shooting unarmed people is justified then you have no business either carrying a weapon or defending the border.
Moreover, it’s just absurd to think that Israel’s borders are no easier to secure than ours. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. To even suggest it is as difficult to patrol that versus the thousands of miles of US border shows a complete lack of common sense and logic.
I responded, but Chirol deleted my response. I went to ComingAnarchy and posted this:
invaderMain Entry: in·vadePronunciation: \in-ˈvād\Function: transitive verbInflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ingEtymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go — more at wadeDate: 15th century
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : infringe
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>synonyms see trespass
— in·vad·er noun
He deleted that, too.
I’m reconstructing the comments deleted from Rethinking the United States from memory. The first deleted comment included the above definition of invader and continued thusly:
Should we really care what their motivations for entering the country illegally are? Does it matter that the first act these potential new Americans did was to violate our laws?
Try walking in to Area 51 sometime and see if they don’t shoot you because you were unarmed.
Is the United States of America worth defending?
If it is, unpleasant things will occassionally happen to vulnerable people who tug at our heartstrings. Shooting a beautiful Latina with a cherubic babe in her arms and another one in the oven is hard to do, but rules are rules, right?
I think that’s the part that got him.
Am I seriously advocating the cold-blooded murder of innocent Mexicans who merely want a better life? Chirol seems to think I am.
Is he seriously advocating forming militias to control the land frontiers of the United States? I thought so yesterday, when I took him seriously.
The other comment he deleted was a simple link to The Battle For America. Notice the map at that link. Where the red touches the border is where subnational paramilitary border protection elements might have a chance.