Nice...has the advantage of addressing several issues at once. Need to install a pressurized chute for delivery purposes so we don't have to land....

Nice...has the advantage of addressing several issues at once. Need to install a pressurized chute for delivery purposes so we don't have to land....

Well, maybe a reconsideration is in order. Take a B-25 bomb bay, fit it with seats, fly over the target country and star a series of barrel rolls. Open bomb bay during rolls, and release the seats. spectacular spiral of re-deliveries occurs. A beautiful thing...indeed..

abaco was a stunt pilot, among other things! -- j

p.s. the hindenburg was a good example.
.

I say use Air Force One. Its already wasting the fuel to go on junkets. Leaving O and his family overseas with the other illegal aliens would be a bonus.
On the other hand, I hear that Pitcairn Island wants settlers.
Maybe they'd fit right in there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Does he fly? We could consider a dirigible and do a Hindenburg re-enactment...Bet Trump would pay for it, and call it a "movie" and a "Beautiful thing"....

I'm trying to recruit abaco! -- j
.

I'm good, whose flyin?

good! . we can do it tomorrow -- let's start with some
eligible senators from d.c., OK? -- j
.

I agree. I also have seen that horrible drift towards insanity with claims, and cases where they do the crap you mention above. It is not limited, there are several cases I have seen in various states with similar claims. The problem is they may win some when either insurance companies settle, or the people they sue cannot afford a lawyer.

"my feeling is that violent criminals basically abrogate their rights when they attack the body politic"

Precisely, and it is because they initiate force on another that they void their right not to have it done on them in return. It's like a ridiculous argument put forth in another article I read today claiming that criminals should have a right not to get shot when perpetrating a crime because it violates their rights (http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/lib....

Now one might make the argument that such a punishment as I am suggesting is disparate to the crime committed. If so, the question then revolves around what punishment is sufficient and who should be charged with carrying out (ie paying for and administering) said punishment, so the argument returns us to the same place.

blarman, I am not in any way contesting the idea, I was just raising the question I have seen discussed here (may be worth another thread) where some people seem to think that it is an Objectivist idea that there are no borders, there for there are no illegal aliens, and as such, they all have the same basic rights. I would think some would argue that the above option would not be an Objectivist decision. That said, my feeling is that violent criminals basically abrogate their rights when they attack the body politic, and the whole border thing is moot in that respect. A more aggressive policy of protecting people in this country certainly seems in order, when people will not abide by the rules of the country, for sure.

I'm not really seeing the "doing violence to one's self" in this situation so please clarify. If the law is amended to include this as part of the sentencing, I see it as cause-and-effect.

A few things I take into consideration:
First of all, these individuals are convicted criminals - not merely suspects. They have already forfeited many of their rights by committing crimes serious enough that mere incarceration isn't sufficient punishment.
Second, these individuals aren't citizens of the United States. We have no responsibility to take care of them one way or the other.
Third, these individuals abused our hospitality first by coming here illegally and secondly by committing serious crimes against our people. I'm really not in favor of allowing such a mentality to stand very long.
Fourth, the nations these individuals come from don't respect the laws of our nation and are relying on us being willing to provide a subsistence living for citizens they don't want to take responsibility for as a citizen. I say we need to send them back a strong message that says "No Dumping!"

I was thinking more along the lines of a C130, hauling one of those WW2 gliders used in Normandy, just take off, get the over the border, let go, and shot down anything that come back. Rather draconian, but this is being forced on us.

Not a bad idea, but it seems that would violate a few Objectivist ideas, like doing violence to oneself?

I know what I would do - I'd simply state that if that country won't take you back and you don't get another country willing to take you within 30 days, that you will be executed. We don't have the time or money to coddle criminals, and maybe a strong message like that would actually dissuade some of these people from coming here in the first place.

yessir;;; we could adapt our global hawk to deliver,
like amazon, on a chosen doorstep! -- j
.

It is just another small aprt of the political machine. I am amazed at how many "officials" now seem to be positions where race or color and political reliability are the only job qualifiers. I know this has been one of the criteria in the past, but now it seems the only criteria, which has reduced government from just incompetent, to morally corrupt and totally ineffective.

Actual shootings? We have them at least weekly where the person identified just happens to be "undocumented".

I prefer the glider with remote drop mechanism...seems better for the environment...

that is their style;;; yes. -- j
.

INS is actually one of the few legitimate roles of government, just not as it currently (not) implemented to favor non-citizens, politicians, the Democrat Party, and crony crapitalists over people like us.