Jump to content

MS 13 Gang members indicted in CA slayings


Kults

Recommended Posts

Quote

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles charged 22 people linked to a subset of the vicious gang that's known as the Fulton clique, members of which are suspected in nearly 200 crimes in several states over 9 years, according to a federal indictment released Tuesday.

"We have now taken off the streets nearly two dozen people associated with the most violent arm of MS-13 in Los Angeles," U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna said.

Of the 22 defendants, 19 had entered the country illegally in the past three or four years, according to Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles.

This is obviously a hot button issue these last few years. Most news outlets reported the crimes and the indictments, curiously though only FOX mentioned 19/22 were here illegally..funny that.

 

Most migrants are peaceful and just want a better life, some are clearly not and have different intentions. This doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing so some details get buried or swept under the rug. Personally I find it disgusting that this type of thing is overlooked so that politicians can artificially inflate their voting blocks with illegals while the MSM works hard at being complicit in the whole scham. 

 

What do you guys think? Is this a necessary evil or are we biting off our noses to spite our faces?

 

Some people will undoubtedly take the position that many of these migrants were forced into gangs to survive and that alone shouldn't be enough to keep them out of our countries. I get that but what is with the savior complex at the expense of your own population's well being and safety?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ms-13-gang-members-indicted-california-slayings-illegal-immigrants-killings

 

 

 

MS-13-Gang-Los-Angeles-YouTube-640x480.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

I know we touched on this in the Venezuela thread, but interested in seeing @Mercerstep in and rationalize his position on open boarders. Genuinely curious about how it could work, based on a rational discussion and evidence and reason based debate.

 

--------

 

Personally, I think they absolutely need to fix the issue with legal immigration, while also cracking down on illegal immigration. Considering the world we live in and how many groups are obviously intent in harming Americans and America, as well as the violence that stems from the illegal drug trade, as well as human trafficking, etc... I can't think of how it could make sense to not enforce a strong border policy. And to clarify, I'm not against immigration at all, but do feel that there are certain people that have a clear track record of working against civil society, as well as plenty more that have shown to be either incapable of uninterested in taking care of themselves, let alone contributing back to society in any meaningful way.

 

Assume most people here that own homes, likely have a fence bordering your property and regularly lock your doors when you aren't home? If you don't, no doubt you're fine with some neighbor friends encroaching your yard, but what if its strangers? Would it be different if it were strangers and from the looks of them, obviously not the sort of people you'd likely invite in?

 

How many of you AirBnB your places? If AirBnB announced that they're no longer going to vet people and that anyone can stay at your place, would you be okay with it? What if they told, that they'd try and gauge their character as best they can by seeing if they can find their Instagram or Facebook profile, but no real identification would be needed. Would that sit well with you?

 

--------

 

Not trying to be hard line about it, because this is an area that actually isn't a major issue I focus on. I'd be open to reconsidering my position if someone can present a compelling argument to sway me. Again, I'm open for overhauling legal immigration, particularly if it was engineered to require that people pay their dues in a manner that's respectful and reasonable (if we can actually agree on that). Personally, I would take away the right to vote in anything except the local elections. I think that alone would dead most of the debates we see surrounding this issue. Perhaps offer an exception, should the person successfully complete military service without issue. Likewise, they should be completely barred from any sort of tax payer based welfare. I think you can run a program where the person demonstrates they are financially stable, but offer a second program for those that clearly are not. Perhaps a service along the lines of a domestic peace core where housing / health care / education / training is traded for a commitment to serve a certain period in the program, that also focuses on a transition to private life based upon their training / track record and proficiency. Maybe like military service have this be a 4 year thing and those that seem unable to pass through it successfully, get the chance to turn it around with a further two years or get rejected and deported? Obviously I'm not talking about slave labor an . indentured servitude, but rather green communities that are established in rural areas that are self sustaining, as well as capable of output that contributes back to the USA in the form of quality food, clean energy, domestic manufacturing, etc... Again, this isn't a prison work program that depends on tax payer money to sustain, but rather, an experiment along the lines of terra forming... Creating modern, green communities in sparse areas that have a gross output that's been designed and proven to far outpace the needs to sustain itself. I can envision, if done right, many of these people would likely not want to leave it. Perhaps even offer these types of people ambassadorships in which, they split from the hive to help anchor new hives as the program grows? Maybe, the quality of life ends up being so high and that perhaps the program is run on a barter system to help insure the movement of money stays local, at least while remaining a member of the program?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty easy one but here goes:

 

Arrest people committing crimes that have actual victims, and physically remove them from society. If you're here illegally, and not committing crimes (regardless of your paperwork status) no physical removal. Also no detaining, no questioning, no where are your papers. Pretty simple stuff.

 

 

If all my neighbors start speaking Arabic/Spanish and I don't like it I can move, but I can't decide what language my neighbors speak, or what social customs (outside of criminal acts) they practice. If violent crime prevention is a good excuse for violating someones rights, it makes more sense logically to remove 14 to 25 year old males from society temporarily. I know gangs suck but most people coming here from central America are not in gangs.

 

To me, if a crime is victimless, I don't consider it a crime at all. This includes drug use, drug sales, prostitution, defending yourself, possession an "illegal" weapon, tearing the tag off a mattress, tax evasion, even changing your location without government permission. To me a crime is a violation of someones person, property, or liberty. So on the flip side, I think the crime is detaining, questioning, or physically interfering with someones liberty without them committing a crime.

 

If you're here as a peaceful participant in the same economy I'm part of,  your best interests, are always in my own best interests, even if I don't like you or we can't speak the same language. Most of these people held in the camps are not criminals, the people holding them there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

This is a pretty easy one but here goes:

 

Arrest people committing crimes that have actual victims, and physically remove them from society. If you're here illegally, and not committing crimes (regardless of your paperwork status) no physical removal. Also no detaining, no questioning, no where are your papers. Pretty simple stuff.

 

 

If all my neighbors start speaking Arabic/Spanish and I don't like it I can move, but I can't decide what language my neighbors speak, or what social customs (outside of criminal acts) they practice. If violent crime prevention is a good excuse for violating someones rights, it makes more sense logically to remove 14 to 25 year old males from society temporarily. I know gangs suck but most people coming here from central America are not in gangs.

 

To me, if a crime is victimless, I don't consider it a crime at all. This includes drug use, drug sales, prostitution, defending yourself, possession an "illegal" weapon, tearing the tag off a mattress, tax evasion, even changing your location without government permission. To me a crime is a violation of someones person, property, or liberty. So on the flip side, I think the crime is detaining, questioning, or physically interfering with someones liberty without them committing a crime.

 

If you're here as a peaceful participant in the same economy I'm part of,  your best interests, are always in my own best interests, even if I don't like you or we can't speak the same language. Most of these people held in the camps are not criminals, the people holding them there are.

So you have no consideration towards a person's past? In the case of MS13, its fairly easy as they seem keen to tattoo it all over themselves. In many cases you might be able to piece together a person's background, but lets say that you are unable. Wouldn't obvious gang tattoo's give a strong indication of past transgressions? At least enough to merit a deeper interview process and perhaps a probationary period?

 

As stated, the crux of your position is victimless crimes. But where do you stand when it comes to vetting a person that seems to have a strong propensity towards crime? I can understand the slipper slope that it can be in treating someone different simply because you *believe* they might do something wrong, but considering this gang has a track record of uber extreme violence of the worst type, you still feel good with letting them in and hoping they keep to the straight and narrow, ultimately becoming a valued member of society?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

So you have no consideration towards a person's past?

If it involved violent crime like in the case of a gang member yes.

 

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

In the case of MS13, its fairly easy as they seem keen to tattoo it all over themselves. In many cases you might be able to piece together a person's background, but lets say that you are unable. Wouldn't obvious gang tattoo's give a strong indication of past transgressions?

Yes, while all of this is true I think people should be allowed to tattoo anything, including swasticas on their faces if they see fit. Again, I'd need evidence of the person actually committing a crime against person, proprty, or liberty before I'd allow myself to act on my personal judgements and violate their liberty.

 

That's not to say I wouldn't pre-judge the shit out of someone based on obvious signs of undesirable traits, but that's an entirely different from deciding to violate someone's liberty based on my suspicions. I basically need evidence of a crime taking place first to justify taking action, but wouldn't give 2 fucks if the person felt I discriminated against them by for example not hiring, or renting a house to them if they had a gang tattoo.

 

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

At least enough to merit a deeper interview process and perhaps a probationary period?

This assumes I think the government should be in charge of vetting people in the first place. If I did support the system, I'd of course decide to exclude because gang tattoos, to make way for someone without gang tattoos. I don't think the government should be in charge of vetting people for entry in the first place though. I'd prefer it was the responsibility of a domestic sponsor, and/or transportation provider without any government involvement.

 

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

As stated, the crux of your position is victimless crimes. But where do you stand when it comes to vetting a person that seems to have a strong propensity towards crime?

Physical removal based on "probabilities" (outside of past examples of criminal activity) is a violation of liberty? Logical consistancy dictates we'd be OK removing gun owners because they're more likely to shoot, or penis owners over fears they could be rapists. I mean women do rape way, way less then men,  If you present a logically consistent exclusion process based on probabilities I'd like to hear it. Keep in mind how granular we'd have to get when describing which tattoos are OK, I mean we'd have to agree to some way of deciding tattoo X is ok, and Y tattoo isn't. Then what about pants sagging past a certain centimeter below the ass crack etc. We could get caught up in defining, and applying these granular rules or dump them all together, and focus on establishing Identity, and reliably investigating if someone has committed crimes in the past.

 

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I can understand the slipper slope that it can be in treating someone different simply because you *believe* they might do something wrong, but considering this gang has a track record of uber extreme violence of the worst type, you still feel good with letting them in and hoping they keep to the straight and narrow, ultimately becoming a valued member of society?

Nobody let them in, it's as if you've forgotten they crossed illegally in the first place, so I'm not even sure what the point up for debate is here. I'm sure we both agree violent criminals should be excluded from society, where we don't agree on here is hard to asses on my end. Obviously you're leaning towards being more exclusionary here in general. The problem is my assertion the government doesn't need to "grant" anyone rights, I think you're born with these rights no matter where you're born, and it's easiest to maintain these rights if you're not violating the rights of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my phone, so unable to get fancy with quotes or type out as much as I have to say, but trying to understand how you think it’s a violation of a persons liberty by denying them access to property for which they have zero connection beyond desire. Officially, much of the USA is “public property”, in that it belongs to the tax payers. Them not being citizens, precludes them from any right to it. 

 

Likewise, not sure your analogy holds up in regards to gun owners, penises or personal style (or lack thereof). In this context, we’re discussing someone that has demonstrated an allegiance to a gang, by going so far as to tattoo it on themselves. It’s known that this gang has a propensity towards extreme violence. So in this case, we’re not talking hypothetical potential in the form of stereo types, but rather an individual that has pledged allegiance at some point to a clearly criminal enterprise that has consistently demonstrated its penchant for violence. 

 

If we are not to vet people as they come in, you’re allowing for this type of individual to come in freely. My guess is that once it’s understood by those sorts of people that borders are entirely open, that they’d likely coordinate a mass migration. So our choice is to sit it out and take a reactionary stance or to take steps to prevent, what many might argue is an obvious if not likely possibility. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, misteraven said:

On my phone, so unable to get fancy with quotes or type out as much as I have to say, but trying to understand how you think it’s a violation of a persons liberty by denying them access to property for which they have zero connection beyond desire. Officially, much of the USA is “public property”, in that it belongs to the tax payers. Them not being citizens, precludes them from any right to it. 

I'd think we both agree I can make rules for my own property. Where we disagree is if we can make/enforce rules for our neighbors to follow on their property. As long as they aren't violating your rights, or a voulentary agreement like a contract they had with you  I don't think you have any right to enforcement of any rules they need to follow. Who they sell their land to, invite onto it, etc. is their prerogative.

 

Government property is unclaimed private property in waiting, until it becomes private property as far as I'm concerned. Even if I didn't hold those beliefs I wouldn't assume I have a right to exclude others from sharing this public space. The only rights to exclusion are to your own property, or a voluntary agreement between property owners like an HOA, gated community, etc.

 

36 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Likewise, not sure your analogy holds up in regards to gun owners, penises or personal style (or lack thereof). In this context, we’re discussing someone that has demonstrated an allegiance to a gang, by going so far as to tattoo it on themselves. It’s known that this gang has a propensity towards extreme violence. So in this case, we’re not talking hypothetical potential in the form of stereo types, but rather an individual that has pledged allegiance at some point to a clearly criminal enterprise that has consistently demonstrated its penchant for violence. 

This assumes we're only discussing gang members here, we're not. I could be mistaken but I don't think you're advocating for open borders for non gang members. If not we're in complete agreement because I too advocate for the physical removal of violent criminals.  

 

36 minutes ago, misteraven said:

If we are not to vet people as they come in, you’re allowing for this type of individual to come in freely. My guess is that once it’s understood by those sorts of people that borders are entirely open, that they’d likely coordinate a mass migration. So our choice is to sit it out and take a reactionary stance or to take steps to prevent, what many might argue is an obvious if not likely possibility. 

I never said not to vet, I assert the vetting should be done strictly based on criminal history, not a logically inconsistent method of guessing. All those who are not criminals should be allowed entry. Obviously I don't believe in the welfare state either, so I think we'd be OK and continue to attract the right people. If your beef is with crime, fight crime, if your beef is with immigration you have every right to exclude immigrants from your property, your business, your private life. Your own suspicions, and personal opinions aren't  grounds for violating someone else's rights that aren't violating yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The news decides what's news and how much they want to show of what.  MS13 has been in the states for a long time now.  The news does little to cover the U.S. roll in how shitty some S. American countries are, how we've armed resistances and tried to install leaders, how some of those people were even trained in the U.S. This has contributed to the current situation in those countries.  Things to consider re: MS13, not everyone in that gang wears it on their face.  There are people crossing our borders who are gang members with few if any tattoos.  There are people crossing our borders who may become a member when they arrive here.  Would not be surprised if there are people leaving S America to escape this shit only to get caught up in it when they get to the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, One Man Banned said:

 The news does little to cover the U.S. roll in how shitty some S. American countries are, how we've armed resistances and tried to install leaders, how some of those people were even trained in the U.S. This has contributed to the current situation in those countries.  Things to consider re: MS13, not everyone in that gang wears it on their face.  

..so that means they should let violent criminals in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This strawman that somehow MS13 and Immigrants are the exact same thing is fiction. You can be both anti MS13, and pro immigration. While I'm sure a small percentage of undocumented migrants are gang members, the vast majority aren't. If it's really gangs you're against, we'd be discussing gang taskforces, not immigration.

 

How to encourage the positive outcomes from immigration:

  • No Welfare State
  • Legalize Self Defense
  • Legalize Drugs/Prostitution/etc.
  • Require a sponsor to enter the country
  • Hold Sponsors accountable financially (civil arbitration).

 

How to create a problem where one didn't exist:

  1. Slow asylum application processing to a bare minimum (a few a day)
  2. Point out the crisis of more people crossing illegally (don't blame on step 1)
  3. Expand into a private prison system costing $140 a day per immigrant bare minimum
  4. Give party donors, palm greasers, pedophiles, and political allies the private prison  contracts 
  5. Violate probable cause, illegal search & seizure laws to maximizing profit referencing step 2 as an excuse
  6. Pretend you're solving a problem, when your corruption, and wasteful actions are the main problem taxpayer's face
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 If it's really gangs you're against, we'd be discussing gang taskforces, not immigration.

Not really. That gang happens to be immigrants,  the topic is illegal immigrant gang members.

 

They shouldn't be there to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mercer said:

This strawman that somehow MS13 and Immigrants are the exact same thing is fiction. You can be both anti MS13, and pro immigration. While I'm sure a small percentage of undocumented migrants are gang members, the vast majority aren't. If it's really gangs you're against, we'd be discussing gang taskforces, not immigration.

 

How to encourage the positive outcomes from immigration:

  • No Welfare State
  • Legalize Self Defense
  • Legalize Drugs/Prostitution/etc.
  • Require a sponsor to enter the country
  • Hold Sponsors accountable financially (civil arbitration).

 

How to create a problem where one didn't exist:

  1. Slow asylum application processing to a bare minimum (a few a day)
  2. Point out the crisis of more people crossing illegally (don't blame on step 1)
  3. Expand into a private prison system costing $140 a day per immigrant bare minimum
  4. Give party donors, palm greasers, pedophiles, and political allies the private prison  contracts 
  5. Violate probable cause, illegal search & seizure laws to maximizing profit referencing step 2 as an excuse
  6. Pretend you're solving a problem, when your corruption, and wasteful actions are the main problem taxpayer's face

Nobody so far has claimed that immigrants = MS13. I think for the most part, immigrants are just people escaping undesirable circumstances or seeking a better life. But likewise, there's obvious problems with mass migration, the least of which is transition and logistics. What we're discussing here is an intellectual exercise in exploring the topic of completely open borders versus a smart immigration system with enforced borders.

 

That said, I agree with your points above and believe that this is how its handled in most other countries, at least before it became the PC trend to somehow bend over backwards for immigration, generally at the expense of domestic homeless and always at the expense of tax payers. Again, I'm going to loop back to my plan above in regards to establishing these green pseudo terra form communities because I think with the right thinking and right people (companies) involved, it could literally be a game changer on both sides of the fence (massive benefit to legal immigration, as well as a boom to the economy and country). 

 

But again, when it comes to a massive amount of people (projections are in the millions), at minimum, it likely mirrors society - 10% are scumbags and 10% of those are straight evil. Considering the level of poverty and violence in the countries a lot of these people are coming from, it's likely that the ratio is significantly higher. I'm not at all saying you treat people guilty until proven innocent, but there needs to be a vetting process. A successful company wouldn't just accept anyone that shows up for the job. Why would a country? And no I don't believe that its a human right to be able to live anywhere you want. I believe in personal and national sovereignty and believe that upwards mobility is not an inherent right that is guaranteed, but rather an option  built on potential and a persons willingness to earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, misteraven said:

A successful company wouldn't just accept anyone that shows up for the job. Why would a country? And no I don't believe that its a human right to be able to live anywhere you want. I believe in personal and national sovereignty and believe that upwards mobility is not an inherent right that is guaranteed, but rather an option  built on potential and a persons willingness to earn it.

Nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kults said:

..so that means they should let violent criminals in?

No.  There are few 'should' in life period.  What I'm saying is kind of what Mercer just did as far as trying to link MS13 to immigration as well as that most immigrants are not gang related.  I'm also saying that there is no 100% method for any U.S. agency to verify if someone coming across the border is or is not a gang member short of their own uncoerced verbal admission.  2 other points I thought of.  As said, MS13 has been around for a long time now without them being linked to an immigration problem so it is worth noting the timing when the media or politicians do want to link the two.  Second would be that while people are busy trying to make the current wave of immigrants an issue, perhaps the people of South America are not the issue.  We've let all sorts of people into the country including nazi war criminals and of course the 911 terrorists.

 

  1416761444_ScreenShot2019-07-22at1_35_16PM.thumb.png.dec037c2edfced4444a5cfdf422945c7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

Nobody so far has claimed that immigrants = MS13.

It's implied and what the entire conversation is framed around. Nobody is discussing how to solutions to curb crime (outside of more immigration restrictions) besides myself.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

I think for the most part, immigrants are just people escaping undesirable circumstances or seeking a better life.

Agree, which is why immigrants as a group are statistically proven to have less criminals per capita than native born Americans. From my experience the largest turds tend to live, and die within a mile of when they were born, it's rare that an actual gang member would choose to go someplace new, and if they do it's usually for a fresh start, or to escape their circumstances. There are outliers to this but it's rare.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

But likewise, there's obvious problems with mass migration, the least of which is transition and logistics.

Disagree, we're the strongest country in the world because of the type of people we (used to before the welfare state) attract. The so called logistical problems I've seen described are nothing in comparison to the logistical problems of trying to enforce an imaginary line in the dessert.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

What we're discussing here is an intellectual exercise in exploring the topic of completely open borders versus a smart immigration system with enforced borders.

As far as the open border discussion goes, I don't want open borders, but also acknowledge that in my ideal future there are no borders. Logical consistency demands I review, and keep an open mind about policy that requires a state. If I'm truly a peaceful human being, I can't use the government (violence and the threat thereof) to construct my ideal society. It's the same shortfall Socialists make when ignoring property rights, to redistribute wealth as they see fit. My ideal world can only be achieved voluntarily, or it's not worth doing at all IMO. Circling back to using force, the state, or government to shape society around you, it opens a can of worms.

 

Basically, if we agree it's OK to physically remove people who aren't violating person, property, or liberty who's to say any of us have a right to be here? Does might make right? Could Native Americans take a vote if they want us here. If so what gives them the rights to, if not, what gives you the right to take a vote on who gets to live here now. The question isn't so much if an open border would improve our situations, or quality of life. I mean if my neighbors and I take a vote to physically remove the rich lady on our block we could take all her shit, we'd all be better off. Maybe we'd turn her lot into a park or something right? This isn't so much a pragmatic conflict, as it is a philosophical one.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

 

That said, I agree with your points above and believe that this is how its handled in most other countries, at least before it became the PC trend to somehow bend over backwards for immigration, generally at the expense of domestic homeless and always at the expense of tax payers.

End the welfare state.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

Again, I'm going to loop back to my plan above in regards to establishing these green pseudo terra form communities because I think with the right thinking and right people (companies) involved, it could literally be a game changer on both sides of the fence (massive benefit to legal immigration, as well as a boom to the economy and country). 

Again, just end the welfare state IMO, without which only those who are confident they can actually add value here would show up. Also, who's to say these terra forming communities would pay off financially, if so they should invest and do this privately as it's own venture. I want a tax rate of zero.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

 

But again, when it comes to a massive amount of people (projections are in the millions), at minimum, it likely mirrors society - 10% are scumbags and 10% of those are straight evil. Considering the level of poverty and violence in the countries a lot of these people are coming from, it's likely that the ratio is significantly higher.

Statistically, immigrants as a group contribute more to our economy per capita, and are less likely to be arrested. 

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

I'm not at all saying you treat people guilty until proven innocent, but there needs to be a vetting process.

We were fine for the first few centuries without a vetting process.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

A successful company wouldn't just accept anyone that shows up for the job. Why would a country?

Simply put, we're not a company seeking applicants. A country isn't a group of people all voluntarily organized into a hierarchical structure with a common goal. One citizen doesn't have any power over another, or a claim to the entire country where they get to decide who's let in. We're a group of people that collectively image this same line. We believe where you're born in relation to this imaginary line somehow automatically grants special travel rights, and if not we must get the written permission of our owners/masters to change permissions. If we want to go deep here, a border is only an agreed upon line where two violent organizations have agreed to separate their monopolies on violence to their respective sides and nothing else.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

And no I don't believe that its a human right to be able to live anywhere you want.

I disagree, I believe you do have the right as long as you're not violating another humans rights to person, property, or liberty to do so. Governments, and their decrees are ultimately a poor choice to base your moral, or philisophical code of conduct on.

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

I believe in personal and national sovereignty

I also believe in personal sovereignty, national sovereignty not so much only because of my favorable views on succession. I think if a State want's to secede from what it feels is a corrupt nation it's their right to, and if a county wants to secede from a state, a city from a county, a neighborhood from a city so be it. I believe this right for secession is availiable all the way down to the individual. Sovereignty ultimately has it's limits and is only consistent when applied to individuals. 

 

3 hours ago, misteraven said:

and believe that upwards mobility is not an inherent right that is guaranteed, but rather an option  built on potential and a persons willingness to earn it.

Exactly, it's not guaranteed, nor is it's the governments place to do so. If being born here, growing up speaking English, and having an entire lifetime to make connections and exploit opportunities here isn't enough of an advantage, the government doesn't need to interfere on your behalf to make sure you're protected. It's a form of Socialism to me, just instead of fucking over the rich to favor the lazy, you're fucking over a foreigner to favor the lazy. All government interference is Socialism in my eyes, I say survival of the fittest and let the free market decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a ton on my plate and trying my best to get through this despite an overwhelming desire to spend countless hours on the forum.

 

Anyhow, suggest you google articles on the growing gang problem in rural America caused by agricultural communities attracting migrant workers that in turn end up bringing gang issues that often stem from dynamics that originate in the South American countries they fled from. It's actually a thing. But Your comment about...

 

Quote

From my experience the largest turds tend to live, and die within a mile of when they were born, it's rare that an actual gang member would choose to go someplace new, and if they do it's usually for a fresh start, or to escape their circumstances. There are outliers to this but it's rare.

This sounds more like an opinion than a fact. Fact is that many gangs, and notably MS13, are organized syndicates with some pretty vast reaching operations. I'm not talking about the town losers, but actual organized crime. Largely built to make money off trades like drugs, human trafficking, extortion, larceny etc... They go where the opportunity is, which is likely why they came to the USA and according to some estimates, number in thousands. I get that all all the gang members combined are a fraction of the population of some 320 million people in the USA, but likewise, I'm sure you can dig up a stat that shows that shows the corresponding destructiveness that stems from a relatively small subset of the population. Anyhow, you make some good points... But yes, I was using the article about MS13 as a vehicle to discuss the larger topic of immigration and simply making the a statement that my position now remains rooted in the belief that...

 

Most of the cultural conversation seems to be focused on facets that don't seem to me to be at the root of the discussion, assuming the goal is a consensus on a solution.

 

Anyhow, will loop back to this when I'm able.

 

Here's a PDF of a study in regards to what I mentioned above on gangs infiltrating rural communities...https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4468&context=etd

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Fact is that many gangs, and notably MS13, are organized syndicates with some pretty vast reaching operations. I'm not talking about the town losers, but actual organized crime. Largely built to make money off trades like drugs, human trafficking, extortion, larceny etc... They go where the opportunity is, which is likely why they came to the USA and according to some estimates, number in thousands.

 

Here's a PDF of a study in regards to what I mentioned above on gangs infiltrating rural communities...https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4468&context=etd

 

Not sure those 1st 2 statements are correct.  They've probably used RICO against these guys before but I would see them more as affiliates to organized crime, hired muscle to do dirty nasty work but lacking the structure and connections to compete against organized criminals.  Re: the history, the gang originated as a way to protect some Salvadoran immigrants against the other gangs of LA.  It was spread back to S America when some of these people were deported for varying reasons.   Dark comedy.  Their country gets disrupted and thrown in civil war, they come here to escape but then find themselves in need of protection from other Americans here, so they form a gang that the U.S. spreads by deporting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're like a bad case of gonorrhea we cant get rid of because both countries are still fucking each other by deporting them back and forth. We could probably wipe them out in a year or two if we classified them as enemy combatants (they are), pooled our money together, and hired mercs/special forces teams with good surveillance tech.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up around gang culture all my life. It was essential to survive in the city depending on where you lived. It was the difference between getting your ass beat everyday or  getting walked all over.

 

I hung out with people from different gangs because sometimes a phone call was enough to stop your ass from getting your head bashed in for walking down the street. I saw countless people get their ass beat, shot at and even killed because of these things. For some people that was their only family and it wasnt just latinos it was people of all races.  You want to work a 12 hour a day making $10 an hour or do you want to slang and make more money then most people in your neighborhood? 

 

many of the guys I grew up with have grown up started families and have moved on from the lifestyle. The ones who have stuck around are either dead or in and out of jail.

 

the problem with gangs is as soon as you take leadership away then you end up in a power vacuum and factions that answer to no one. Now you have a bunch of fucked up kids who have seen way too much shit before they're even 18 with access to weaponry and a chip on their shoulder. People who are angry and feel that the world owes them something

 

The only way to stop it is kicking their door in and going after each and everyone of them.

 

although that isnt as easy as it sounds. Who gets to decide who will be the people on their list and what are the chances mistakes wont be made.  what are the chances that my door wont be kicked in because of where I live, the way I dress, the way I talk hell maybe I just said hello to someone.  That being said I am not willing to sacrifice my personal rights and freedoms just because of that small percentage. 

 

once again sorry for the lack of organizations run on sentences and bad grammar. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mn1_fuckos @One Man Banned

 

It should go without saying I'm not into state based  solutions at all. I view all armed groups engaging in non self defensive violence as a threat. This means the government, gangs, terrorists, other governments, etc. I can go into it deeper later, but basically there's nothing wrong from my perspective pitting these two groups against each other, or hoping for the demise of either one, or even both.

 

Fuck gangs, police, klan members, terrorists, and all armed groups that aren't restrained to strictly defense. I'm against every individual on this planet that robs, civil asset forfeiture's, assaults, kidnaps, imprisons, extorts, and kills as a way of life outside of strictly defensive tactics and situations.  This includes police, prison guards, and gang members (same thing). They give up their rights to person, property, and liberty the moment they pledge to band together, and violate these rights in regards to others.

 

It may not be obvious after that statement, but ultimately I'd like to minimize as much violence as possible. Including even the self defense based violence but make no mistake, I'd have no problem putting a bullet in someone I assessed as a credible threat to my life, and might escalate to that point if they violate my rights to my property, or liberty. The only thing stopping me/us from doing so now is one of these gangs (the state) is enforcing it's own monopoly on both defensive, and offensive violence in an area surrounded by an imaginary line (AKA a border), and infringing on their monopoly at this moment  wouldn't be a good tactical move on my/our part.

Edited by Mercer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting to swerve off topic... 

 

Still not seeing a credible solution put forth on the situation of dealing with mass migrations of people in which it’s obvious that at least some of them are likely to be extremely violent and are aligned with groups that have a track record for murder, theft, human trafficking and whatever other efforts that they want, with zero regard for any semblance of morality at any level. 

 

Even if it represents the vast minority of those that come through, it still ultimately culminates in a significant swath of violent crime both directly and indirectly.

 

You can maybe attempt to root out the leadership in an offensive tactical move, but it’s unlikely considering that in the modern era, most of these groups are smart enough to decentralize leadership and employ cells to help ensure security. Further, most of this exploration / discussion is focused on MS13, but you still have various cartels, as well as massive networks of criminal and / or terrorist enterprises that would immediately fill the void if MS13 suddenly disappeared. 

 

Honestly, I find it amazing that the everyday terrorist type activities found in the Middle East like roadside bombs and blowing up markets and public areas hasn’t really made its way. I hope it never does, but believe it’s likely inevitable, as well as the extreme cartel violence found south of our border, which is in fact making its way over. I think enforcing a border and implementing a thorough vetting process will help minimize it and likely continue pushing it off, but it would seem to be a statistical probability that it’ll happen eventually and that with those precedents, we’ll see more of it. 

 

Personally, I still see my concept of self sufficient communities as described previously as the closest we’ve come to possibly addressing both sides of this issue. Lots of that violence stems from a genuine lack of personal opportunity, at least at the personal level of the average “foot soldier”. I would suspect that if you give people purpose and stability, you also give them hope and something they want to defend and perhaps minimize the number of individuals that truly don’t give a fuck and willing to do shit like decapitate or dismember bodies and the other heinous shit you see these gangs and terrorists do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for a viable solution to the small numbers of mass migrants that are legitimately considered undesirables, is the same as asking for a viable solution for the problem of the small numbers of domestically born undesirables. In fact, the solution is exactly the same to both situations, effective enforcements of rights to life, liberty, and property, only using methods that prioritize protecting the rights of those that aren’t in violation. Probably not be the answer any of us want, but it’s the only logically consistent answer I’ve come across that addresses this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...