How much would a border fence cost? Would $182,000,000 be a good start?

I'd LOVE to see the 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee take Herman Cain's "alligator in moats" idea....and run with it...

and say "Elect me and I'll set up a 50 foot tall electrified fence....with machine gun nests to mow down the Gonzalez Family if they cross the 'line of Death'".....and see the cheering crowds of Confederate-flag waving white Tea Partyers.....

but....sadly....the RNC is not stupid nor politicaly suicidal.

 

As a veteran, I know the LAW.

Now, for the last time. Please cite me your sources that it would be illegal to place landmines and a .50 cal at our border. OUR BORDER.

If you do not provide me these sources as YOU CLAIMED, then you have shown us that you lied.

 

So you are saying that if it is our border, we can murder as many unarmed civilians as we want?

 

It depends on how the government labels illegal immigrants. Right now the government does not label then an invasive force to justify shooting men, women and children trying to cross the border, so it would go against UCMJ to shoot unarmed civilians like that.

Now if the government labels them a legitimate threat to shoot, then of course not there wouldn't be any UCMJ action against soldiers.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a soldier willing to shoot an unarmed female and child just for crossing a border.

 

I've claimed Bush knowingly killed unarmed civilians? You have a source for that?

 

There we have it folks. Questerr stated that it would violate the UCMJ, Federal law, and the GC to place landmines and a .50 cal at our border. The only problem? Questerr lied, as it does not violate any of the three. Oh yea, Questerr refused to provide one source for their claims. This forum encourages SOURCES when making claims. Especially since you cited 3 entities that this "allegedly" violates.

 

I clarified my statement already that it would be a violation if they were used. And you refuse to answer my question of if they would be emplaced but not used.

Are you really going to force me to provide sources that knowingly murdering unarmed civilians is a violation of the law?

 

I'm just curious as to which article in the UCMJ Questerr is citing. I've asked many times and received no answer. As it does not exist.

 

Article 118.

 

Back to square one. I state that putting landmines and a .50 cal at the border would be useful. You stated that it violates the laws.

Now, cite me those 3 sources of law. You don't have to quote the entire article, maybe just the section code.

We will wait.

- - - Updated - - -

So are you saying Obama violates this law when mowing down civilians in Yemen with drones?

 

I state if they are used it would be illegal. Are you saying they would be emplaced but never armed or fired?

- - - Updated - - -

You have proof we knowingly and deliberately target civilians with drones in Yemen?

 

Placing landmines and a .50 cal isn't against the UCMJ.

Shooting civilians crossing the border, right now, is. Article 118 of the UCMJ I think would cover that. Again, that is solely dependent on how the U.S. labels border crossers. If the government labels them as a threat to be shot, of course no UCMJ will happen.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-nominee-proposes-landmines-for-mexico-border/

This is a right-wing nutjob who proposed actually putting landmines at the border. Notice how the left never said it violated any of the laws you cited.

Now, for the last time, cite us the sources that says "putting landmines at the border is illegal". Since you're a barracks lawyer, I'm sure you'll come up with it fast.

 

Unarmed civilians whose goal is a better life are a threat how?

 

Well if we were to place landmines and a .50 caliber we would use them, so it would be government sanctioned. Therefore it wouldn't go against UCMJ because the government would authorize it. However, depending on what actually happens, it could go against the GC. Lots of scenarios, but bottom line is it wouldn't be against the UCMJ.

 

Exactly, this is just more evidence of a two party scam, but the brain dead, party patronizers can't see past their own ignorance. Nothing is getting done because both parties have been clearly ordered to assure that nothing gets done. The arguments and irrational activity will continue until nothing can be done.

 

I didn't say it was a threat to be shot or blown up, only that the government could label it as such and therefore it wouldn't go against the UCMJ. The government could label it an invasion force subject to defending over though. Again, I wouldn't agree with that but it is a possibility the government could do such a thing to justify it.

EDIT: The real driving factor that needs to be done to stop illegal immigration is the companies hiring them. A fence isn't going to work, real punitive damages to companies in fines would be the way to stop illegal immigration (or severely slow it down).

 

THANK YOU. That's my point. I wasn't actually advocating this, merely kidding. But once Questerr said it was illegal and cited 3 sources of law, then REFUSED to cite the sources of question, I just had to argue this. He or she thinks they are a barracks lawyer and they got proven wrong. If we placed landmines and a .50 cal at the border, it would be because it's govt sanctioned.

 

I'm not saying its illegal to put then at the border. I'm saying its illegal to put them at the border and then actually use them against unarmed civilians.

Do you see that slight (*)(*)(*)(*)ing difference? Stop arguing against a Strawman like another mindless Rightist and actually address my point.

 

Personally, is love to see a Republican government do exactly that. Then when CNN begins showing footage of mothers carrying babies with their heads blown apart and children who've had their legs blow off by landmines, we won't see another Republican government for a few decades.

 

I've never understood why a fence was necessary, in the first place or in fact if people even know where most illegal's enter the country. First anyone can simply cross any border, at any check point, claiming to visit family, shop or go to some doctor, catch a ride past some check point (if open) and there in. Millions from around the world are given some form of visa, for any number of reasons, enter by boat or air, and there in.

There are plenty of laws, to prevent hiring illegal's that are not enforced, which if enforced would cut off most reasons for being here and no service is Federally required to illegal's including healthcare.

Drug smuggling or terrorist/criminals, already know exactly how to enter and leave the Country at will, but double the penalties for anyone caught and this could be greatly reduced.

 

When the driving force of illegal immigration is companies that hire them and a government that gives them benefits, a fence is going to do jack and (*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

This is why I think the government (both Democrats and Republicans) are not really serious about combatting illegal immigration.

As you said, there are already laws on the books that can be enforced AND real punitive fines for companies that hire illegals would curb illegal immigration. As long as there is a reason for them to keep coming here illegally they will. A fence isn't going to remotely stop that.

 

No it is not. If the government sanctions landmines at the border, it violates NO law. If we decide that mexicans crossing the border is a threat to our national security, it won't violate ANY of the laws you made up, and it will be GOVERNMENT SACNTIONED.

Next debate.

 

Which is why no effort has gone into a fence. It would just make it harder to hire and coddle them.

No fence is going to be built and illegal trespassers are going to be a part of the culture as long as the two party scam are in charge.

 

It definitely wouldn't go against UCMJ, but depending on the situation it could go against the GC to shoot an unarmed civilian (say a mother with her infant with her).

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you there. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are really interested in stopping illegal immigration because BOTH could easily do so just with no government benefits and severely fining companies that hire illegals.