“Imagine if people put predjudices aside and used that same brilliance to come up with a way how it WOULD work.”

So, I’ve summarily dismissed the minefield without giving any real thot to how it would work? How so? I didn’t give you hypotheticals, I gave you real world scenarios. In fact, I wonder if you’ve ever been across the border, let alone traveled a ways alongside it.

I gave you 3 solid reasons why we should consider the unintended consequences. I’ll give you 3 reasons why it’s DUMB, dumb on many levels:
1) mines are no respector of person/thing, they’d just as soon blow up a illegal, BP agent, armadillo, a snake or cook off in a brush fire. With all of our smart-tech, we’re going to settle for the equivalent of a WWII dumb bomb?

2) who’s going to maintain the field? We certainly wouldn’t leave them out there forever. And before you say, that’s easy because we’ll have a map, then what happens when those coordinates get leaked?

3) finally, but most importantly, to use them is to say we’ve run out of ideas. You have yet to discuss ANY idea to remove incentives that motivate a majority of the illegals to cross the border.

On any other topic, you’re capable of coming up with some note-worthy or even thot-provoking comments. Minefields are a bad idea, I don’t care even if a super-majority of American sheeple are in favor of it. Do us a favor and drop it.

Andy, you know as well as I do that both of us could come up with lists of hypotehtical situatuations all day long.

Imagine if people put predjudices aside and used that same brilliance to come up with a way how it WOULD work. There are always people in the room who could criticize an idea. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have more people who see an opportunity and make it happen.

Like the Democrats summarily dismiss private accounts as a bad idea before they discuss a solution, you are doing the same in summarily dismissing the minefiled idea without giving any real thought as to how it could work.

Answer me this, how were the Soviets able to keep people from running across their borders during the Cold War. A border that was about 5 times as long as ours and twice as remote. The argument that no one was trying to enter is invalid.

HINT: Minefields WEERE a part of a comprehensive solution that involved FORCE!

Simply put, there are many things we have yet to implement that would go a long ways towards de-incentivetize the compelling urges to sneak across the border. If and when we do that, I have no doubt that the only ones crossing illegally will be those with criminal/terrorist intent once they get accross. That is why I’m against beefing up the borders, which is only a band-aid solution and an expensive one at that.

Now having taken the economic illegals out of the equation, if we are left with a high rate of criminals and terrorists sneaking across the border, then laying minefields MIGHT be something to talk about. However, even then, I would still lean towards a method that would allow us to catch them alive so we can find out what their plans were — dead folks telling no tales et al.

I just got back from another roadtrip. In the hotel, I got to watch a little FNC, MSNBC & CNBC. I believe it was on Hannity & Colmes that they had a segment on the minutemen videotaping an illegal coming accross wearing a skimask. They were up on a bridge and this illegal brazenly ran right under their noses into the culvert. After a few minutes, he came out took a peek up on the road and ran back down.

Unfortunately for him, Border Patrol was parked on the shoulder just a ways off and the two agents saw him and ran down to get him. Well, when they did so, out came a bunch of other illegals that were hiding under the bridge unbeknownst to even the Minutemen.

Now this segment amply illustrates why mining the border is unrealistic. That road is only yards (perhaps 20 yards) away from the border. To mine the border, just how much of a deadman’s zone are you expecting?

One mile? If so, you’re talking about the Federal government aquiring 4,000 – 5,000 square miles, some of it already owned by the public, some are private property (Emminent Domain). And in the case of roads and other existing infrastructure, ie border towns/cities, you’re talking about the massive cost of relocating them to accomodate the DZ. Take El Paso, TX, are you going to move a whole city and suburbs back a mile so you can plant a minefield? Is it worth it?

Going back to that Minutemen video, if we don’t do the set-back, imagine the uproar over an innocent American inadvertantly stepping on a mine while taking a roadside leak. Better yet, imagine a family traveling and having an accident where they ran off the road into the minefield. What would have been a surviveable accident now is a deadly accident. At what price is the loss of a family to prevent a handful of criminals/terrorists worth it? Something to think about.

Just because some of us think that mining the border is too extreme doesn’t mean that we’re lily-livered. And as repeatedly pointed out before, there is a host of measures that we should implement before even considering your final solution.

Speaking of final solutions. Back in the 90s I’ve had the privelege of spending a few years of taking care of my grandmother. I got to pick her mind on many topics from Buddhism to Christianity and why she chose Buddha over Jesus; we talked about her perspective on WWI, WWII and the Cold War. With regards to Hitler, she was for him while my grandfather was against him. Over his objections, she eagerly joined the Nazi party. To her credit, she was never ’sheeple’ and with my deaf mother in tow and pregnant with my aunt, she walked into the party HQ in Berlin, fully expecting to be disappeared for wanting to quit the party. For more reasons than I can relate, your idea would indeed lead us down a totaltarian road.

With all that in mind, let’s talk about how best to solve the illegal immigration issue then do it, and leave the pointless rhetoric of mining the borders off the table.

Notice his methodolgy for solving a problemand in his own words is to “TALK” about it.

Typical. Talk about exposing oneself. Furthermore if you don’t think anyone besides me is putting forth my solution, then you sepend too much time in your own microcosm of arrogance. IF you had the courage to step away from your “adoring” fans for a second or two per day, you would see that your assertion is wholey false.

By the way, your trusted, smarter than Raymond and most honorable elected officials just voted themselves a pay raise while you TALKED!

Again, this is not the sort of thing I want to see on my blog, unless it’s coming from me and directed toward a politician. – Admin

Honestly SCSI, I haven’t tried to ignore Actus. But I think I will with Raymond.

The funny thing about Actus is that he doesn’t ever really say anything. He doesn’t ever state what he is for/against or what his ideas/suggestions are. I’ve reviewed his comments on many other sites besides this one and they never go past a few sentences (usually) and they are pretty clever little sayings but they miss the point and are really harmless as there aren’t any positions of his where he’s advocating much of anything. Boy, I could’ve said all that in much less words. …

Interviewer: “But what is under the giant turtle?”

Flat-earther: “For your information, Mr. Smarty, it’s turtles all the way down.”

So there.

Tom Tancredo is a great American and he is responsible and has been talking about the problem for years with excellent solutions that he has been offering. I would love to see the Congress move forward with any one of Tom’s proposed solutions. They would be productive, fruitful and would not cause adverse reactions, damage to the party, damage to our country, or damage to people (no deaths).

We should do everything we can to move this conversation forward to what Tom wants to do and away from what Raybo wants to do.

I vote that we simply ignore Raymond except for one sentence statements once in a while to make sure the left doesn’t think we agree with him on this thread.

No. It’s not. But if your message doesn’t attact anyone (in fact alienates people) the goal won’t be achieved. At all. In fact the opposite will be achived.

Raymond wrote, “It is about being RIGHT!”

We have been telling you also that it’s not right to blow up people for simply trying to migrate here illegally. There are 100 other ways to take care of illegal immigrants.

Raymond wrote, “Increasing the conservative majority WILL NOT be accomplished by watering down conservatism”

How is it watering down conservativism to NOT allow illegal immigrants with 100 other solutions besides blowing people up with land mines? The word NOT is capitalized because it is a strong conviction. Your solution is the problem not our conviction.

Raymond wrote, “We don’t hand out cookies and milk to attract new members, we speak on that which is right and true and then YOU decide if you can handle it.”

What is right and true is to talk about illegal immigration as the problem that needs to be solved. We need to protect our national security. Solutions to the problem are many but your solution would create more problems and then not even acheive the goal as we would lose in our system of democracy.

Raymond wrote, “I have CLEARLY stated, that the fields would be labelled”

In what language Raymond?

Raymond wrote, “As for working for 40 years to repair the damage I would do? The GOP has been working for about 45 years to repair the supposed “damage” Sen. Joseph McCarthy inflicted, but lo and behold, the man has been proven 1000% correct over and over and over again ya dig?”

And your solution would be even harder to dig out of politically. It would be 100 year rule for the opposition party of the party that implemented your solution.

Being right and being principled often means standing alone and it often means standing out and looking crazy (e.g. The BRILLIANT Alan Keyes.)

Increasing the conservative majority WILL NOT be accomplished by watering down conservatism and making “wannabe” conservatives comfortable and cozy.

We don’t hand out cookies and milk to attract new members, we speak on that which is right and true and then YOU decide if you can handle it. If we just wanted to increase the numbers, we could continue to just become “Democrats Light” and thusly appeal to the middle of the bell curve infected with weak minds like Specter, Mccain, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich and Chafee

Landmines are tools of indiscriminate killing ONLY WHEN THE INTRUDERS DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE THERE!!!! The reason you can’t line your yard with them is because unlike federal laws governing the use of deadly force, I can’t shoot a Mexican illegal who is already in the country, but I CAN SHOOT a person who has crossed into my lawn and into my house.! Once in my house, I can apply deadly force.

I have CLEARLY stated, that the fields would be labelled as well as the consequences for trying to navigate throught them. You’re sounding like Actus now.

Indiscriminate killing is a term used to describe the ACTIVE and DELIBERATE application of deadly force on targets PURPOSELY SELECTED for their availability as opposed to their value as legitimate targets AND YOU KNOW THIS!

As for working for 40 years to repair the damage I would do? The GOP has been working for about 45 years to repair the supposed “damage” Sen. Joseph McCarthy inflicted, but lo and behold, the man has been proven 1000% correct over and over and over again ya dig?

He was a compromiser that dissappointed conservatives fairly often. Since he’s been out of office he has spoke a little more vociferously and I thought to myself “boy I wish he was that well spoken when he was in office”.