Mexico drug violence spills over into the US

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

So Mexico is waging a war of aggression... I see... interesting. Do you have any actual proof or are you going to take peejay's stance that Mexico's government is handing survival packs on the south side of the border (God forbid right)?

I also think you're not reading my posts carefully.

Bullcraaaaap, was there yesterday...not survival packs whatsoever

This theory is perfect for Mythbusters

NEEEXT!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

All the difference.

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder. Why? Because on the reason and actions. There's a difference between assault or murder and self-defense. Why? Because of the reason and actions involved.

If the reason and action is not taken into account, then by definition, there is no difference between the above (and other areas in life which depend on small, but relevant, differences).

Spare me the silly relativisms - that's a ridiculous analogy to make in this context.

Individual migration does not amount to a deliberate policy of aggression by a country's central government.

[HAL 9000 96]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

So Mexico is waging a war of aggression... I see... interesting. Do you have any actual proof or are you going to take peejay's stance that Mexico's government is handing survival packs on the south side of the border (God forbid right)?

I also think you're not reading my posts carefully.

Bullcraaaaap, was there yesterday...not survival packs whatsoever

This theory is perfect for Mythbusters

NEEEXT!

Shhhh quit it dude. You're cramping like others.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Illegal migration isn't aggression either. Its an immigration law violation that is punishable by deportation.

So... I could trespass onto someone else's property, claim that I can live there regardless of what the owner says, and my acts would not be considered aggressive?

When an individual can wage war against another nation as if that individual were a nation, then we can talk about your comments making sense. I suppose you haven't really read up that much on aggression between nations.

You just keep tossing the insults out today, don't you? That's a sign of someone who can't make a reasonable argument. I've seen you do it to others too.

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

All the difference.

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder. Why? Because on the reason and actions. There's a difference between assault or murder and self-defense. Why? Because of the reason and actions involved.

If the reason and action is not taken into account, then by definition, there is no difference between the above (and other areas in life which depend on small, but relevant, differences).

Spare me the silly relativisms - that's a ridiculous analogy to make in this context.

Individual migration does not amount to a deliberate policy of aggression by a country's central government.

We're not talking about "individual migration." If one or two did it, then this wouldn't a problem. We have mass amounts of illegals pouring into this country on a daily basis. If a citizen of one country breaks the law of another, that is considered aggressive by nature.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Yeah... if you're a terrorist...

Menial-skilled, migrant workers from rural agricultural communities don't fit that category.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Shhhh quit it dude. You're cramping like others.

am I?

Me sorry me sorry it's booyah's fault

Edited February 10, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[HAL 9000 96]

Illegal migration isn't aggression either. Its an immigration law violation that is punishable by deportation.

So... I could trespass onto someone else's property, claim that I can live there regardless of what the owner says, and my acts would not be considered aggressive?

When an individual can wage war against another nation as if that individual were a nation, then we can talk about your comments making sense. I suppose you haven't really read up that much on aggression between nations.

You just keep tossing the insults out today, don't you? That's a sign of someone who can't make a reasonable argument. I've seen you do it to others too.

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

All the difference.

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder. Why? Because on the reason and actions. There's a difference between assault or murder and self-defense. Why? Because of the reason and actions involved.

If the reason and action is not taken into account, then by definition, there is no difference between the above (and other areas in life which depend on small, but relevant, differences).

Spare me the silly relativisms - that's a ridiculous analogy to make in this context.

Individual migration does not amount to a deliberate policy of aggression by a country's central government.

We're not talking about "individual migration." If one or two did it, then this wouldn't a problem. We have mass amounts of illegals pouring into this country on a daily basis. If a citizen of one country breaks the law of another, that is considered aggressive by nature.

Why would you claim residence where you're not from? That seems rather silly. And quite irrelevant to this discussion. You are making a claim of individual aggression when the discussion is quite clearly about national aggression. Two very completely different concepts brother DPX.

Waging individual acts of aggression agains a foreign entity is subjects to the laws of that country. Quite frequently, American embassies are forced to check up on the status of Americans that violate the laws of foreign nations... but in terms of making it a USA vs Country X issue... no. That is something else. Check your US Passport for more information about that.

If you have problems following along with the argument and think it insulting that I correct you to stay on course with the logic... then don't participate if you can't handle the logic. Easy as that.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Yeah... if you're a terrorist...

Menial-skilled, migrant workers from rural agricultural communities don't fit that category.

You can't make that statement. Anyone could be a terrorist, including incoming illegals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Illegal migration isn't aggression either. Its an immigration law violation that is punishable by deportation.

So... I could trespass onto someone else's property, claim that I can live there regardless of what the owner says, and my acts would not be considered aggressive?

When an individual can wage war against another nation as if that individual were a nation, then we can talk about your comments making sense. I suppose you haven't really read up that much on aggression between nations.

You just keep tossing the insults out today, don't you? That's a sign of someone who can't make a reasonable argument. I've seen you do it to others too.

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

All the difference.

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder. Why? Because on the reason and actions. There's a difference between assault or murder and self-defense. Why? Because of the reason and actions involved.

If the reason and action is not taken into account, then by definition, there is no difference between the above (and other areas in life which depend on small, but relevant, differences).

Spare me the silly relativisms - that's a ridiculous analogy to make in this context.

Individual migration does not amount to a deliberate policy of aggression by a country's central government.

We're not talking about "individual migration." If one or two did it, then this wouldn't a problem. We have mass amounts of illegals pouring into this country on a daily basis. If a citizen of one country breaks the law of another, that is considered aggressive by nature.

I must be one of those morons you were alluding to the other day as I really thought that illegal immigrant migrants amounted to one or two people

Jayzus! What was I thinking!?

If a citizen of one country commits a crime in a foreign country, that individual becomes punishable by the laws of the host country. Its not regarded as a hostile act by their entire country of origin.

[HAL 9000 96]

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Yeah... if you're a terrorist...

Menial-skilled, migrant workers from rural agricultural communities don't fit that category.

You can't make that statement. Anyone could be a terrorist, including incoming illegals.

Seemed his statement was off a bit. Bad PD

Lucky us there are already well-established guidelines in place to remove illegal aliens when caught.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Yeah... if you're a terrorist...

Menial-skilled, migrant workers from rural agricultural communities don't fit that category.

You can't make that statement. Anyone could be a terrorist, including incoming illegals.

Sure I can. I just did.

Anyone *could* be anything, but as far as terrorists go its fair to say that *most* probably aren't.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well lets see how this exercise in logic continues.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Why would you claim residence where you're not from? That seems rather silly. And quite irrelevant to this discussion. You are making a claim of individual aggression when the discussion is quite clearly about national aggression. Two very completely different concepts brother DPX.

Waging individual acts of aggression agains a foreign entity is subjects to the laws of that country. Quite frequently, American embassies are forced to check up on the status of Americans that violate the laws of foreign nations... but in terms of making it a USA vs Country X issue... no. That is something else. Check your US Passport for more information about that.

If you have problems following along with the argument and think it insulting that I correct you to stay on course with the logic... then don't participate if you can't handle the logic. Easy as that.

The last paragraph is a shining example of egotistical-inducing insulting commentary. Was that really necessary? You "correct me?" You can't correct me -- these are opinions. As far as logic is concerned, we obviously have a different view on that as well. I see logic in my argument and you see it in yours. Once again, however, you toss insults my way because I don't agree with you.

Oh and don't call me "brother." I have a brother and you are not him.

Look... individuals (plural) can wage war against a nation. If that weren't true, I could go to any country in the world, do whatever I want, and it wouldn't reflect badly on the U.S. nor would it cause potential warlike situations between that country and the United States.

Yeah... if you're a terrorist...

Menial-skilled, migrant workers from rural agricultural communities don't fit that category.

You can't make that statement. Anyone could be a terrorist, including incoming illegals.

Sure I can. I just did.

Anyone *could* be anything, but as far as terrorists go its fair to say that *most* probably aren't.

Well then... I could make any statement I wish, couldn't I? How could I be wrong? After all, we can make an unsubstantiated comments we wish.

Yes, anyone could be a terrorist. But how does being illegal mean "most probably aren't"? Once again, you don't know. If you don't know, you can't claim your statement as fact (just as I can't in this situation).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Logic isn't a subjective concept.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why would you claim residence where you're not from? That seems rather silly. And quite irrelevant to this discussion. You are making a claim of individual aggression when the discussion is quite clearly about national aggression. Two very completely different concepts brother DPX.

Waging individual acts of aggression agains a foreign entity is subjects to the laws of that country. Quite frequently, American embassies are forced to check up on the status of Americans that violate the laws of foreign nations... but in terms of making it a USA vs Country X issue... no. That is something else. Check your US Passport for more information about that.

If you have problems following along with the argument and think it insulting that I correct you to stay on course with the logic... then don't participate if you can't handle the logic. Easy as that.

The last paragraph is a shining example of egotistical-inducing insulting commentary. Was that really necessary? You "correct me?" You can't correct me -- these are opinions. As far as logic is concerned, we obviously have a different view on that as well. I see logic in my argument and you see it in yours. Once again, however, you toss insults my way because I don't agree with you.

Oh and don't call me "brother." I have a brother and you are not him.

Brother DPX...

Get over it. Or look for some lavender or something to calm down.

Logic is what it is. You are making ludicrous and irrelevant claims that are quite well documented in international law. Don't believe me? Read your passport pages carefully.

As an individual, you are subject to the laws of foreign nations while in those nations. As are illegals that come here illegally and are caught.

Again... when you can prove that its the Government of the Estados Unidos de México waging an act of aggression, then you'll start making more sense. Otherwise... calm the heck down. Seriously.

Logic isn't a subjective concept.

No kidding.