Does the USA have a right to "shoot to Kill ILLEGALS" ......?

Question

(mainly Mexicans or anyone from anywhere) who enter the USA illegally by jumping the fence and or entering USA by any other illegal means.

Answer 1

Well, this question does sound a bit like a violence/hate pimp but there is a good question/point here.
Yes, using deadly force could be justified if a felon or criminal attempted to us deadly force to escape or endanger an officer of the USA law enforcement agency (border patrol included)
In fact, this issue is a reality wherein drug and people traffickers have attacked border partrol and sheriffs deputies at the Mexican border using automatic weapons recently ...in fact, out gunning our authorities who do not get such high powered munitions to enforce the law. Generally it is not needed.
It IS time to realize that the issue of border security and illegal immigration along with drug trafficing ARE serious, national security issues. I for one believe we are in a war of sorts at our borders, even if others do not see this.
If our military can go over to Iraq or Afgan. and kill in the name of justice and peace, they certainly SHOULD BE on our national borders protecting America and Americans from those who would come here illegally and break our laws in general and cause any kind of harm or disruption. Again, I for one believe that is happening currently.
If deadly force was required to do that job properly, so be it.

Answer 2

Well, before you go oiling up the guns and heading for the army surplus store, consider this: Other countries that've chosen bullets over ballots have fallen in many cases into abject poverty.

I say use your ballot pencil, and express your opposition to illegal immigration in a more cohesive and peaceful fashion.

Let's have the border fence, let's have unlawful hiring practices discontinued, and a clearer agreement with other countries on immigration. If ya can't get hired, can't rent, can't do anything, ya can't move in. I call it 'first things first'. If you've decided you want to be a citizen in our country, that means first casting off your old citizenship in your old country. You're leaving some other place behind because it didn't have what you wanted etc. So, first, end your ties to the Old Country, THEN emigrate to the New World. The first US settlers were called 'pilgrims', those who undertook a quest for a new way of life different from the old, in a new place of freedoms.

Today, that's all changed, and the immigration debate's about money, and LOTS of it. MUCHO dinero. And, the new attitude toward immigration is 'keep your citizenship, GIVE me the MONEY. NOW'. That's right, 'gimme'. Gimme, gimme, gimme, or I'll take it. How do you like me NOW?!?!?! That kind of thing.
We've practically imported 1/2 a generation of entitlement-americans. I say 'pull the plug on welfare, and put a stop to illegal hiring, get the border fence built, and start actually enforcing the immigration laws, for a change'. That's already started to happen in some states, time will tell if other states follow through with it after the election in November...that's why it's important to vote...support your candidates that are willing to stick to their guns in opposition to illegal immigration...the more people speak up, the more likely it is that their representatives will actually hear them, and stop for a minute and listen to the concerns and actual grievances of bona-fide US citizens. But, if people just sit around mad, nothing will change, then they'll be bitching about 40 million illegal immigrants, then 60, then we'll be speaking 50 different languages...by then we'll likely all be dead and stuff, I forecast a big famine in the next 20 years somewhere in the world...

Answer 3

Not the USA as a whole, but the Border Patrol are Federal officials. If they tell an intruder to this country, who has entered illegally to "STOP!", and they don't stop, that Border Patrol has the right to shoot him. I believe they could apprehend women and children without lethal force. Grown men can run faster without encumberances, like children, pregnancy, age, or just being slower than the men, like 'most' women.

Answer 4

sure and no. I help a 10 mile zone interior the U. S., in the back of a solid fence properly above and under floor, with national shelter presence on a non-provide up foundation. STK (shoot to kill) could in basic terms save on with to every physique with a firearm or drugs in the zone. experienced canines discover, bullets fly. No scientific care the two, if not ineffective, pass slowly back and tell the others who prefer to objective passing the zone, in case you save coming, bullets save coming.

Answer 5

1. The "Q" asked if the GOVERNMENT had a RIGHT, not individuals.
2. ANY government has an absolute RIGHT to protect its borders from the invasion of its land
3. 12 million + of any group that is foreign, in a sovereign land can be considered an invasion.
4. If the Commander-in-Chief orders our border to be protected my military force, then yes our (or any other) government has the RIGHT to do so!

Answer 6

not just for fun.
i don't know them, but there must be rules of engagement. there was a story a while back about some illegals trying to evade capture in a suburban. they were not shot at, but when the vehicle crashed, 9 of the 22 people inside died from crash related injuries. they were not shot at.

yeah, you heard right, 22 people in a suburban.

Answer 7

No, law enforcement cannot shoot at a fleeing felon unless there is evidence that the person is going to create a danger to others.

Prison guards can shoot inmates to prevent them from escaping, they have already been convicted.

Answer 8

They don't issue guns to the Border Patrol as decorations. Anyone entering the country is subject to being shot, but frequently restraint is used.

Answer 9

Sure buddy, like that bill is ever gonna be approved. Try coming up with a realistic approach and some GOOD ideas for once!!

Answer 10

Only if it has a right to shoot and kill the illegal haters.