Analysis of the Arizona Immigration Law Ruling
High Federal Overlord Judge Susan Bolton, if this photo gives you any hint of where I am going with this...****************************
Have I read Bolton's ruling? Nope. So how can I analyze it for you? Easy, these people are so predictable that all I have to hear is a brief on AFR about it, and I know where this is going. If I were Rush Limbaugh I would claim that this is just a result of how amazingly smart I am. Since I am me, and such a claim would be ridiculous, I will just tell you they are so predictable that once you realize and apply a few basic principles then anyone with a few brain cells to rub together can cut right to the heart of these decisions. Here are a few....
1) Ruling class members like Susan Bolton are going to side with illegal aliens over the Country Class. Since the ruling class typically lives in gated communities in up-scale parts of town, and often send their children to the best schools, they are not in the least alarmed by the transformation of much of middle America into a third world slum by swarms of illegal aliens. In general these illegal aliens want to enjoy the advantages of a clean, prosperous, law abiding society, but bring with them the attitudes, values, and habits which produced the very conditions of their homelands. But many of them do bring with them cultural traits which the ruling class finds desirable- they are good at kow-towing to those with the power. Regular Americans, unused to oppression and living in fear, are too uppity for their liking. They prefer serfs who know who their "betters" are. Even if they know it because of a long history of being oppressed by those "betters". The average Country class person is not there- yet.
2) The actual text of the Constitution, or any other law be it from God or from Man, means absolutely nothing to the Ruling class. Sometimes this contempt of the rule of law is open, like when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi answered "Are you kidding?" when asked where in the Constitution was Congress given the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance. This does not mean they don't claim the mantle of "the Constitution" as a propaganda ploy. Since the Ruling Class does not believe in absolute truth, then in a sense everything is a lie. For those who hold to such thinking what matters is saying whatever needs to be said to placate the serfs until a sufficient number of chains can be forged to fetter them all.
An example of this latter approach can be found in "Justice" Department Spokesperson Hannah August's statement that "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework," Yet a look at the actual text of the Constitution shows that it does not give the Federal government complete control of immigration. The role of the states in immigration is not limited to "cooperating with the federal government in is enforcement of immigration law." Far from it.
The actual text says basically that the states had TOTAL control over immigration for the first 30 years of the republic, except that the Feds could put a $10 tax per person on immigrants. And after 1807? It implies that the Feds can ban "the immigration or exportation of persons into the United States", but that's all the authority that Congress is given on immigration, except that Congress can develop a uniform standard for naturalization of those who want to become citizens. That power does not apply to a debate about who has enforcement power over aliens that both a state and the federal government say are here illegally.
Nowhere- nowhere- does it ever even imply that states lose any authority to make their own or additional rules about who can come into their state from outside the United States. Read it for yourself, in particular article one section nine. It's not very long or hard to understand. Judges like Bolton get the Constitution wrong not because it is beyond their intellect, but because it is beneath their contempt.
3) In disputes between the Federal Government and a State Government, there is no "unbiased referee." In particular Federal Government employees known as "Federal Judges" are not unbiased referees. The contention that these federal employees should be the sole and final arbiter of the limits of federal power over the states is too absurd a position to bother refuting, except for the fact that it is the position of the ruling class. With few exceptions, federal judges are going to rule in ways that favor the branch which signs their pay checks. What could be more obviously true?
Some advocates for the Rule of Law say that the defeat was not so bad as one might think for two reasons. One is that law enforcement can still ask for proof of immigration status, they simply are not allowed to be mandated to ask for such proof. Fair enough. But they also count it a victory that the judge upheld the portion that allowed citizens to sue so-called "Sanctuary Cities" which make no effort to help the Feds with their near-sham immigration law enforcement "efforts".
In the larger picture of shaking off the fetters of the Ruling class, even this part of the decision was a defeat, because all it allowed the state to do was go after cities who had a policy of non-cooperation with the Federal government. In other words, the judge said states have the freedom to help back up the federal government's control, but not the reverse. Ten years from now, I may have to live in a "Sanctuary City" for bloggers who run afoul of new federal laws against "hate speech" on the internet, formerly know as "free speech." Perhaps I will be labeled a "potential domestic terrorist" for writing that the craven idiots who are destroying our country are craven idiots who are destroying our country. In such a case, I hope there are cities that are "sanctuary cities" from coast to coast where local officials make it a policy to refuse to help D.C. do any of its dirty work.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, July 28, 2010
58 Comments:
"Since the ruling class typically lives in gated communities in up-scale parts of town, and often send their children to the best schools, they are not in the least alarmed by the transformation of much of middle America into a third world slum by swarms of illegal aliens. In general these illegal aliens want to enjoy the advantages of a clean, prosperous, law abiding society, but bring with them the attitudes, values, and habits which produced the very conditions of their homelands. But many of them do bring with them cultural traits which the ruling class finds desirable- they are good at kow-towing to those with the power."
Damn Irish!
Exactly right Mark. I wish these Mexicans would quit bringing their horrible attitudes and total lack of values to middle America - we gotta keep it clean in here.
Do I detect sarcasm here? What, do you actually want more Kennedys to come to America?
5 of the top 10 safest cities in America are largely filled with immigrants.
http://guanabee.com/2010/07/safe-immigrant-cities/
Anon1202: You misrepresent what the report says. You say these so-called safe cities are "largely filled with immigrants."
The report says LA is comprised of 36.2% foreign-borns; San Diego 335,000 of 1,279,329 (or about 26%)Mexican-born; and, finally, San Jose 31.5% Hispanic, plus a sizable Vietnamese population. First, the report doesn't appear to distinguish between documented and undocumented people. Documenteds, I would presume, may have more of an incentive to behave, else they risk deportation. Secondly, the percentages, 36.2%, 26%, and 31.5% are hardly "largely filled." The term "largely filled" to me means more immigrants than non-immigrants, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Third, the study's methodology isn't mentioned. Also, what role does law enforcement play in the study's conclusions? Do these cities have their own version of a Sheriff Joe who is serious about combating crime? Are there active neighborhood watch groups keeping a vigilant eye on things? And last but not least, who paid for the study? That alone could skew the results tremendously.
I can't accept the implication of your statement b/c there still too many unanswered questions.
If you bothered to invest more than a passing glance at the article, you may find that the source from which the stats were cited was:
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2009/CityCrimeRankings2009.htm
Also, for most intents and purposes, there is no discernible difference between 'documented' and 'undocumented' immigrants. I can't tell them apart, you can't, and the study doesn't.
If illegal immigration is as big a problem as you would have us believe, then one would have to assume most of these immigrants were illegal. Nevertheless, total immigrant contribution to crime isn't as impressively frightening as it is made out to be.
Also, standard penalties for common crimes apply equally to both legal and illegal immigrants, I don't see how threat of deportation is any greater for one than the other.
The implications of the article are reasonable enough, given some rational thought.
"Also, for most intents and purposes, there is no discernible difference between 'documented' and 'undocumented' immigrants. I can't tell them apart, you can't, and the study doesn't."
You admit, then, the authors make no distinction between 'documented & undocumented' immigrants, b/c there is no ostensible discernible difference between them. Surely you jest. There is one gigantic difference that can easily be discerned - PAPERS! A passport, a visa, a green card, a work/visit permit, photo ID, driver's license, bank statements, utility bills, checks, credit cards, proof of vehicle insurance - any number of things. Documented immigrants are COUNTED! Perhaps you've heard of a census, whereby the US government actually does a head count; if they're documented, then, by definition, they're COUNTED. You act as though legals & illegals are all lumped together - and moreover, that we can't tell them apart visually so that's where the inquiry should stop. I have no problems with legal, documented immigrants. I applaud those folks for coming here looking for a better life - but they should get LEGAL. There is no gray area.
Something else that's glaringly omitted is a breakdown between violent & non-violent crimes. The fact is, illegals commit non-violent crimes such as ID/SS fraud, insurance fraud, food stamp fraud, tax evasion, DL fraud and more at far greater rates than their legal, documented counterparts. You gotta be outta your mind to think cities "largely filled" (your words) with illegals are safer.
See http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html
for crime data on illegals.
"Also, standard penalties for common crimes apply equally to both legal and illegal immigrants. I don't see how threat of deportation is any greater for one than the other."
First sentence, true enough. Second sentence, I'll be glad to explain so you may see. Documented immigrants have likely gone through a tremendous amount of bureaucratic red tape and expense to get legal. Thus, they are easily ID'd in law enforcement data bases around the country and at the border. If they commit and are convicted of a deportable crime, they're either incarcerated or deported, and in the case of the latter, unless they obtain fraudulent ID to re-enter, or cross the border illegally, they will remain out. Illegals, since by definition have no respect for the law, will simply obtain a false ID and then illegally re-enter, either with the false ID or by crossing the border illegally. Documented legals have far more to lose by committing a deportable crime.
The implications of the article are biased, illogical, unreasonable, and likely erroneous. I'm not only skeptical, I'm disbelieving. You gotta be outta your mind to think cities "largely filled" (your words) with illegals are safer.
I dispute the contention that LA is one of the ten safest cities in the USA. I believe this statistics are skewed. My instinct tells me that there are larger numbers of violent crimes not reported in LA than in say, Kansas City or Cleveland. I also think that police in LA are less likely to fill out paper work on crimes they do know about unless the violence is really bad.
If people are *only* counted when they have papers, how do you support any claims of your own regarding numbers of *un*papered illegals?
"If they commit and are convicted of a deportable crime, they're either incarcerated or deported, and in the case of the latter, unless they obtain fraudulent ID to re-enter, or cross the border illegally, they will remain out. Illegals, since by definition have no respect for the law, will simply obtain a false ID and then illegally re-enter, either with the false ID or by crossing the border illegally"
Ok, so if a *legal* immigrant commits a deportable crime, then he, by definition, has as little respect for the law as an *illegal* immigrant, and will simply reenter as an illegal, same difference.
In the case of an *illegal*, he has already broken more laws than a *legal*, so he already has more incentive (or similar incentive, at least)to behave, his penalty should be harsher. At any rate, the problem isn't keeping out bad guys so much as adequately punishing them when they are caught. Violent offenders deserve more than a slap on the wrist, no matter if they are foreign or domestic.
"The implications of the article are biased, illogical, unreasonable, and likely erroneous. I'm not only skeptical, I'm disbelieving. You gotta be outta your mind to think cities "largely filled" (your words) with illegals are safer."
The implications don't agree with your own bias, so you have refused to bother thinking critically.
" My instinct tells me that there are larger numbers of violent crimes not reported in LA than in say, Kansas City or Cleveland."
Perhaps, but you can't argue much from silence of non-reported crimes. What Also, I'd like to point out that it is using "cities with a population of over 500,000".
I think I can argue that there are more non-reported crimes in cities with lots of illegals. I would simply be using your own logic that illegals have a dis-incentive to commit crimes and risk contact with the legal system. The same would hold true for reporting of crimes on them. I regret that the illegals don't have the full protection of the law because of this, but their house is built on an unrighteous foundation.
You have a point about KC and Cleveland being a bit smaller than the cities in the survey, but I would be hard-pressed to name a city over 500,000 that did NOT have skads of illegal aliens in it, therefore it undermines the basis for comparison.
"I think I can argue that there are more non-reported crimes in cities with lots of illegals. I would simply be using your own logic that illegals have a dis-incentive to commit crimes and risk contact with the legal system. The same would hold true for reporting of crimes on them. I regret that the illegals don't have the full protection of the law because of this, but their house is built on an unrighteous foundation."
It's an argument from silence that makes little sense. Illegal immigrants (especially drug and gang related) are supposed to commit violent crimes, not report them.
"You have a point about KC and Cleveland being a bit smaller than the cities in the survey, but I would be hard-pressed to name a city over 500,000 that did NOT have skads of illegal aliens in it, therefore it undermines the basis for comparison."
For an example: the worst city on the list appears to be Detroit, which according to www.fairus.org, has some 7.1-8% immigrant population, compared to El Paso, one of the safest, at 26.8% Foreign Born population. Now, I know that RockThisTown doesn't believe that illegals would be accurately totaled, but there isn't any reason to suspect the total difference to be wildly different.
Gangs going to the police when another gang commits a crime against them? You say my logic makes little sense, and I think yours makes little sense when compared to how things work in the real world. Illegal on illegal violence, especially among gangs, would not be reported as much as crime among citizens.
You are apples and oranges in the El-Paso Detroit comparison for many reasons. "Foreign born" is not the same as "illegal alien" for one thing.
Detroit is black majority and other stats, more compelling than your, show that they have a higher rate of crime than other ethnic groups no matter if they are here legally or not.
I don't think anyone is arguing that illegal aliens commit more violent crimes than 3rd generation fatherless welfare recipients in a shell of a town with almost no opportunity outside of crime. The argument is that they commit more than average- especially when you factor in ID theft and under the table no-tax earnings.
"Gangs going to the police when another gang commits a crime against them? You say my logic makes little sense, and I think yours makes little sense when compared to how things work in the real world. Illegal on illegal violence, especially among gangs, would not be reported as much as crime among citizens."
There is no reason to believe that non-reported illegal immigrant crime is greater than non-reported crime by any other party, again, it's only your personal opinion, which thus far, is not grounded in fact.
"You are apples and oranges in the El-Paso Detroit comparison for many reasons. "Foreign born" is not the same as "illegal alien" for one thing."
How are any legal aliens different from the "illegal aliens [who] want to enjoy the advantages of a clean, prosperous, law abiding society, but bring with them the attitudes, values, and habits which produced the very conditions of their homelands."?
"Detroit is black majority and other stats, more compelling than your, show that they have a higher rate of crime than other ethnic groups no matter if they are here legally or not. "
Then perhaps you should focus your efforts on black people, the really dangerous criminals, if they are that much more dangerous than illegal immigrants.
"The argument is that they commit more than average- especially when you factor in ID theft and under the table no-tax earnings."
A difficult point to argue, for or against, without concrete numbers one either side. How many citizens lie on their taxes? How many are defrauding the welfare system, and are these numbers dwarfed by the similar crimes of illegal immigrants? All you appear to have thus far is a good guess, and a strong opinion.
There is no reason to believe that non-reported illegal immigrant crime is greater than non-reported crime by any other party, again, it's only your personal opinion, which thus far, is not grounded in fact.
Of COURSE there is a reason to believe that non-reported illegal immigrant crime is greater than crime from any other group. Many of their crimes are against EACH OTHER or done to them. They don't want to go to the authorities for the same reason you claim they don't commit as many crimes in the first place- they have a bigger incentive to avoid contact with the system.
A city who is made up of half illegals may have half of the REPORTED crime, but it only makes sense, by your logic or mine, that they shun the contact with the system so many of the crimes in that half of the population are unreported.
How are any legal aliens different from the "illegal aliens [who] want to enjoy the advantages of a clean, prosperous, law abiding society, but bring with them the attitudes, values, and habits which produced the very conditions of their homelands."?
How can you even ask such a question? We get to check out legal aliens. We get a chance to make sure they are not career criminals, carrying dread diseases, or will otherwise be trouble before we let them in. WE even have them take classes to make sure they understand our system. We can screen to make sure they are able and willing to contribute to our nation. We have no such filtering system for illegals.
Then perhaps you should focus your efforts on black people, the really dangerous criminals, if they are that much more dangerous than illegal immigrants.
I focus my efforts on countering the prevailing mis-information campaigns that are prominent. Almost all interested observers agree that the black crime right is a tragedy. Where the lie is coming from is the propaganda campaign that illegal aliens are all a bunch of people of sterling character who just want to come over here and work hard and become good Americans.
Where the battle is, that's where my sword of truth is drawn. Jumping on an issue where there is widespread agreement is just grand standing, not fighting for the truth.
A difficult point to argue, for or against, without concrete numbers one either side. How many citizens lie on their taxes? How many are defrauding the welfare system,
Since the ruling class which controls both parties are globalists who are determined to ram illegal aliens down the throats of the heartland, and they are the ones who fund all of the studies, it is not surprising that I have few studies to fall back on. The money is all done to fund studies skewing the facts to support your side- and your case is still weak.
But I do have a number for you as regards tax crimes and illegal aliens- 100% of illegal aliens who did not get in on an overstayed visa (about 75% of the total) either cheat on taxes by being paid off the books or cheat by using a false ID. To operate in our economy they have to do one of those two things.
"Of COURSE there is a reason to believe that non-reported illegal immigrant crime is greater than crime from any other group. Many of their crimes are against EACH OTHER or done to them"
Many crimes by regular citizens are committed by local gangs, or against them, as those dangerous people in Detroit probably are aware.
"How can you even ask such a question? We get to check out legal aliens. We get a chance to make sure they are not career criminals, carrying dread diseases, or will otherwise be trouble before we let them in. WE even have them take classes to make sure they understand our system. We can screen to make sure they are able and willing to contribute to our nation. We have no such filtering system for illegals."
That system worked well for the 9/11 hijackers, didn't it? I wasn't aware we checked for immigrant "attitudes, customs, and habits" before we let them in!
"Where the lie is coming from is the propaganda campaign that illegal aliens are all a bunch of people of sterling character who just want to come over here and work hard and become good Americans."
Well, apparently illegal aliens are no worse than local black folks, so why complain?
"But I do have a number for you as regards tax crimes and illegal aliens- 100% of illegal aliens who did not get in on an overstayed visa (about 75% of the total) either cheat on taxes by being paid off the books or cheat by using a false ID. To operate in our economy they have to do one of those two things."
Sources, for this side argument?
But even admitting this to be true, illegals cannot completely escape taxes, those who pay no income tax still pay sales tax (or wouldn't have to pay income taxes anyway as their salaries are too low), or if they use a stolen ID, pay taxes and still pay into that person's social security.
Police say driver who left scene of fatal wreck may be illegal alien
02 August 2010
VAN BUREN — Crawford County Sheriff's Department is searching for the driver of a Honda Accord who they believe fled the scene of an accident that left his girlfriend dead.
Yea, Anon, those illegal immigrants sure are keeping are cities safer!
Oops. I meant to say " . . . our cities safer."
"Police say driver who left scene of fatal wreck may be illegal alien
02 August 2010
VAN BUREN — Crawford County Sheriff's Department is searching for the driver of a Honda Accord who they believe fled the scene of an accident that left his girlfriend dead.
Yea, Anon, those illegal immigrants sure are keeping are cities safer!"
What's your point? Documented citizens *never* hit-and-run?
What if the driver was black, would that prove black people are incredibly dangerous?
Are you seriously going to deny that illegals are committing (additional) crimes at a higher percentage than their makeup of the population? Many studies have shown this to be the case.
What's your point? Documented citizens *never* hit-and-run?
My point is I hope the people who did the study you cite as proof that cities 'largely filled' with immigrants are safer count this incident as one where: 1. An illegal was present in this country, by definition illegally; 2, Driving with no driver's license; 3. Without liability insurance; 4. Was involved in and may have caused an automobile accident; 5. Leaving at least one person dead; 6. Left the scene of an accident involving a death; and, 7. Probably left the country.
"My point is I hope the people who did the study you cite as proof that cities 'largely filled' with immigrants are safer count this incident as one where: 1. An illegal was present in this country, by definition illegally; 2, Driving with no driver's license; 3. Without liability insurance; 4. Was involved in and may have caused an automobile accident; 5. Leaving at least one person dead; 6. Left the scene of an accident involving a death; and, 7. Probably left the country."
If hit and runs by locals occur at a 1:1 ratio, then this story makes no difference.
Plenty of native citizens drive without a licence, without insurance, under the influence, commit manslaughter, flee the scene, etc.
Your story is sad and all, but hardly proof that illegal aliens are unique in their ability or likelihood to commit manslaughter.
If hit and runs by locals occur at a 1:1 ratio, then this story makes no difference.
Au contraire, amigo. Allow me to educate you on statistics. If the ratio is 1:1, then the amount of HARs by illegals is a far greater percentage since their sheer numbers are smaller (36.2%, 26%, and 31.5%), by your own reporting.
You have actually made my point; a 1:1 ratio now means that the more immigrants who come here in the future will result in more total HAR incidents.
I was incomplete earlier when I said 'You gotta be outta your mind to think cities "largely filled" with illegals are safer.' You're not only outta your mind, you're delusional.
The story makes a huge difference to the family of the girl who was killed by someone who had zero respect for the law in that he shouldn't have been here in the first place, shouldn't have been driving, and shouldn't have been careless.
"Au contraire, amigo. Allow me to educate you on statistics. If the ratio is 1:1, then the amount of HARs by illegals is a far greater percentage since their sheer numbers are smaller (36.2%, 26%, and 31.5%), by your own reporting.
You have actually made my point; a 1:1 ratio now means that the more immigrants who come here in the future will result in more total HAR incidents."
I think you know what I meant, if the population is 30% immigrant, then, while you'd be more likely to be hit by a member of the 70% population, the total number of accidents for an individual is likely the same no matter their status. Thus, the number of hit and runs you personally commit or suffer would be roughly the same as mine or those of Shamus, the illegal IRA terrorist.
"The story makes a huge difference to the family of the girl who was killed by someone who had zero respect for the law in that he shouldn't have been here in the first place, shouldn't have been driving, and shouldn't have been careless."
It doesn't make a damn difference if your kid was hit by a local meth fiend or a illegal farmer, the kid is dead.
Immigration status doesn't affect driving skills.
It doesn't make a damn difference if your kid was hit by a local meth fiend or a illegal farmer, the kid is dead.
What a stupid statement.
I guess we should just throw up our hands and let our communities and nation be overrun with criminals. After all, any of us could commit a dastardly act any moment, and we wouldn't want to risk endangering our own liberty just to nab a lawbreaker.
Get a clue
Anon817, here's another tragic episode caused by an illegal to which you can close your eyes:
The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and who federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.
Carlos Montano, a county resident, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving. Mr. Montano had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities. Police spokesman Jonathan Perok said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. “At the time of this incident, the accident yesterday, he was in the deportation process and was out on his recognizance for court proceedings.”
Cities 'largely filled' with immigrants safer?
"Anon817, here's another tragic episode caused by an illegal to which you can close your eyes:"
And here is a tragic episode caused by a legal citizen, what's your point?
http://www.universalhub.com/2010/may_have_been_arrest_murder_tedeschi_clerk_jamaica
"Edward P. Corliss, 63, was charged with murder and other crimes and is scheduled for arraignment on Tuesday in West Roxbury District Court. In 1972, Corliss was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of the owner of a small store in Salisbury the year before - while on the lam from a Rhode Island prison work camp to which he'd been sent on a breaking-and-entering conviction."
You've consistently missed the point, which is:
Immigration status has little bearing on violent crime. If you kept all immigrants out, locals will still murder, steal, rape, etc. Police will still fail to keep local offenders out of your home, and little kids will still be hit by cars.
"we wouldn't want to risk endangering our own liberty just to nab a lawbreaker."
Getting close to a good idea here.
You've consistently missed the point, which is:
Immigration status has little bearing on violent crime. If you kept all immigrants out, locals will still murder, steal, rape, etc. Police will still fail to keep local offenders out of your home, and little kids will still be hit by cars.
You're right - I guess I don't see the point in trying to have less crime than we already have.
Open up the borders! Give me your tired, your poor, huddled criminals, yearning to break the law!
"You're right - I guess I don't see the point in trying to have less crime than we already have.
Open up the borders! Give me your tired, your poor, huddled criminals, yearning to break the law!"
You are merely assuming (without any evidence) that all immigrants are violent criminals.
(That they have broken the law getting here is a given, but then, you've probably broken 5 laws driving down to the Piggly Wiggly.)
The question at hand is whether illegal immigrants are dangerously violent criminals. Statistics thus far show that the majority aren't, and people like you just seem to enjoy mindless fear-mongering.
I don't think any of us are assuming that all illegals are violent criminals, just that they are criminals, which by very definition is true. We surmise that they will be more likely to commit other crimes, not necessarily violent ones but sneaky ones like payment under the table and ID theft.
All you can counter with is that El Paso has less violent crime than Detroit even though El Paso has more immigrants. There are lots of other factors besides number of illegal aliens that you are not taking into account.
Detroit is one of the most dysfunctional cities in this nation. Here is a slide show of the "Ruins of Detroit" which documents its decline. Is your standard that as long as its better than Detroit its OK? I don't think we can survive with that standard.
http://www.google.com/images?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&q=ruins+of+detroit&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=PMxYTIDXG-iVOLXC0OsI&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQsAQwBA&biw=1680&bih=860
You are merely assuming (without any evidence) that all immigrants are violent criminals.
Wrong again. I recognize there are some who commit no violent crimes, but - as you admit - just by coming here illegally they have broken the law. Plus, there is ample evidence that immigrants commit violent crimes in substantial numbers: assault, battery, domestic violence, rapes, robberies, & homicides (some negligent & not intentional, but they're nonetheless a homicide).
The question at hand is whether illegal immigrants are dangerously violent criminals.
It's one question, but not the only question. Violent crimes don't occur in a vacuum, so your point is misguided, and perhaps erroneous. Consider: 1. When illegals commit any crime (violent/non-violent, doesn't matter), the total number of crimes goes up; 2. The burdens placed on schools, roads, ERs, health departments, courts, jails, law enforcement, utility infrastructure, welfare rolls, parks & rec areas, beautification efforts (littering), and more by illegals who are paying a disproportionately
smaller accompanying tax base (many illegals work for cash, hence no taxes, as you said earlier) causes societal havoc; 3. Your argument seems to be since legal citizens also commit crimes, we should thus overlook those committed by illegals. My preference is to have a sufficiently secure border to ensure those who cross it do so legally.
"Wrong again. I recognize there are some who commit no violent crimes, but - as you admit - just by coming here illegally they have broken the law. Plus, there is ample evidence that immigrants commit violent crimes in substantial numbers: assault, battery, domestic violence, rapes, robberies, & homicides (some negligent & not intentional, but they're nonetheless a homicide). "
The evidence presented here suggests otherwise, that large cities with lots of immigrants are among the safest. Also, we don't know if they commit substantially more crimes than other groups, so whether they are more or less dangerous than any other group is mere conjecture at this point (given current evidence). Thus, you are simply reacting to fear and propaganda.
"When illegals commit any crime (violent/non-violent, doesn't matter), the total number of crimes goes up; 2. The burdens placed on schools, roads, ERs, health departments, courts, jails, law enforcement, utility infrastructure, welfare rolls, parks & rec areas, beautification efforts (littering), and more by illegals who are paying a disproportionately
smaller accompanying tax base (many illegals work for cash, hence no taxes, as you said earlier) causes societal havoc"
Unless you know how many crimes *every* group else commits, it's difficult to attribute any crime rate increase to any particular group. The article linked to suggests that the idea-"piles of immigrants add to the crime rate" isn't borne out by current statistics.
And while illegal immigrants may not pay into the income tax, they cannot escape taxes altogether. Education is likely funded by general sales taxes, roads upkept by gasoline taxes, etc. Also, they likely don't earn enough to fall under any tax bracket but the one that sends you back a credit anyway, so they probably save you money!
"3. Your argument seems to be since legal citizens also commit crimes, we should thus overlook those committed by illegals. My preference is to have a sufficiently secure border to ensure those who cross it do so legally."
My argument is simply: Because *every group* of people commits crimes, it's difficult to single out any group in particular for special treatment. It may be possible, but most studies are far from conclusive so far.
By all means, reform our immigration, and refuse entry to whomever you'd like. That's an argument for another day (hopeless as it may be to screen immigrants for criminals). All I've been saying is that it is unreasonable to reach conclusions about a rise in (violent) crime based on mere conjecture on immigration status.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Plus, there is ample evidence that immigrants commit violent crimes in substantial numbers: assault, battery, domestic violence, rapes, robberies, & homicides (some negligent & not intentional, but they're nonetheless a homicide)."
The evidence presented here suggests otherwise, that large cities with lots of immigrants are among the safest. Also, we don't know if they commit substantially more crimes than other groups, (Mark allows that blacks are pretty dangerous) so whether they are more or less dangerous than any other group is mere conjecture at this point. Thus, you are simply reacting to fear and propaganda.
"When illegals commit any crime (violent/non-violent, doesn't matter), the total number of crimes goes up; 2. The burdens placed on schools, roads, ERs, health departments, courts, jails, law enforcement, utility infrastructure, welfare rolls, parks & rec areas, beautification efforts (littering), and more by illegals who are paying a disproportionately
smaller accompanying tax base (many illegals work for cash, hence no taxes, as you said earlier) causes societal havoc"
The article linked to suggests that the idea-piles of immigrants add to the crime rate-isn't borne out by current statistics.
And while illegal immigrants may not pay into the income tax, they cannot escape taxes altogether. Education is likely funded by general sales taxes, roads upkept by gasoline taxes, etc. Also, they likely don't earn enough to fall under any tax bracket but the one that sends you back a credit anyway, so they probably save you money!
"3. Your argument seems to be since legal citizens also commit crimes, we should thus overlook those committed by illegals. My preference is to have a sufficiently secure border to ensure those who cross it do so legally."
My argument is simply: Because *every group* of people commits crimes, it's difficult to single out any group in particular for special treatment. It may be possible, but most studies are far from conclusive so far.
By all means, reform our immigration, and refuse entry to whomever you'd like. That's an argument for another day (hopeless as it may be to screen immigrants for criminals). All I've been saying is that it is unreasonable to reach conclusions about a rise in (violent) crime based on mere conjecture on immigration status.
please feel free to neaten that posting disaster up, google kept giving me an error, but each attempt appears to have done something or other.
Hmmm. It seems that the five highest crime federal judicial districts are all along the Mexican border.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=293775
I'll overlook your posting disaster as I've had a few of those, too.
What I won't overlook is: Education is likely funded by general sales taxes, roads upkept by gasoline taxes, etc.
There's an old saying you've apparently not heard, "Better to keep quiet and be thought an idiot, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt." Education is funded mostly by PROPERTY TAXES. Have you ever heard of a millage tax increase? Where do you think property taxes go, Copernicus? If there are twelve Hispanics (1/2 of them school-age children) living in one rented house, then they are contributing very little to funding education for 6 kids. You are correct that most roads are 'upkept' (nice word I've never heard of) by gasoline taxes, but many Hispanics share a vehicle.
I haven't even mentioned the drug trafficking occurring on our border to the south. Let's stick our heads in the sand on that one, too.
Because *every group* of people commits crimes, it's difficult to single out any group in particular for special treatment.
Yeah, you're right - *every group* of people commits crimes - especially those out-of-control Amish! Those neat-as-a-pin farms, horse & buggies, and barn-raisings are going to be the downfall of our country!
Your arguments are so weak any 1st grader could punch holes in them!
I bet if you legalized drugs that the crime in those areas would plummet.
"Education is funded mostly by PROPERTY TAXES. Have you ever heard of a millage tax increase? Where do you think property taxes go, Copernicus? If there are twelve Hispanics (1/2 of them school-age children) living in one rented house, then they are contributing very little to funding education for 6 kids. You are correct that most roads are 'upkept' (nice word I've never heard of) by gasoline taxes, but many Hispanics share a vehicle."
You cannot escape taxes, and you cannot fault a family for saving money.
If there are twelve Albanians living in one rented house, that is their choice.
All of that rent goes to the landlord, who in turn pays property tax, which is one of the taxes assumed in the etc. portion of my previous statement. If you have a problem with that, address *it*, but using it as an argument against illegal immigrants (or Hispanics) is nonsensical. Since when does a valid visa prohibit living with a large family?
"I haven't even mentioned the drug trafficking occurring on our border to the south. Let's stick our heads in the sand on that one, too."
Of that, there is plenty, but smuggling certainly is not limited to immigrants, so it has little bearing on them.
"Your arguments are so weak any 1st grader could punch holes in them!"
When you aspire to that level, let me know.
"Hmmm. It seems that the five highest crime federal judicial districts are all along the Mexican border."
It's an interesting point, well deserving further thought and investigation, but as the majority of the crimes resulting in convictions in the report ("...33 percent of federal convictions were in immigration cases and 32 percent in drug cases." or 65%) are drug and immigration related, I think it's fair to say they are relatively victimless crimes, or at least not deserving the title of "violent crime", which is the subject striking fear in the hearts of the average citizen. What percentage of immigration cases do these border districts make up? It's difficult to reach any meaningful conclusion at any rate.
Also, according to the report, only 3% of cases make it to trial, while they maintain a conviction rate of over 90%, which I find fascinating, and slightly frightening.
"Hispanics share a vehicle."
Why single out Hispanics? The fact that any group of people in the US can share a vehicle (even those pesky Amish likely have one buggy per family!) yet you must single out Hispanics implies simple bigotry on your part.
When you aspire to that level, let me know.
Er . . . I did. You just fail or refuse to acknowledge it.
Since when does a valid visa prohibit living with a large family?
It doesn't - but multiple families living in a single family dwelling does reduce the contribution(s) to the property tax base, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or immigration status.
. . . drug and immigration related, I think it's fair to say they are relatively victimless crimes,
To say that is not only unfair, it's outright false. The idea of a so-called "victimless" crime is a myth. The crimes mentioned take a toll on society in general, through higher law enforcement costs, lower/lost productivity, mental/physical health services costs, the cost-shifting of other services I've already stated, and more.
It's difficult to reach any meaningful conclusion at any rate.
Perhaps for the intentionally blind, deaf & dumb.
. . .yet you must single out Hispanics implies simple bigotry on your part.
Not bigotry, just plain 'ol observation(s) with my two plain 'ol eyes.
"It doesn't - but multiple families living in a single family dwelling does reduce the contribution(s) to the property tax base, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or immigration status."
Ok, so it isn't a valid argument against illegal immigration.
"To say that is not only unfair, it's outright false. The idea of a so-called "victimless" crime is a myth. The crimes mentioned take a toll on society in general, through higher law enforcement costs, lower/lost productivity, mental/physical health services costs, the cost-shifting of other services I've already stated, and more."
Debatable at best, still not the 'violent crime' that have everyone's panties in a twist.
"Not bigotry, just plain 'ol observation(s) with my two plain 'ol eyes."
Taken alone perhaps, if you insist on using it as an argument against illegal immigration (or any immigration), it's simple bigotry.
Ok, so it isn't a valid argument against illegal immigration.
Unless illegals are doing that, which many are.
Debatable at best, still not the 'violent crime' that have everyone's panties in a twist.
Everyone including yours?
Ok, so it isn't a valid argument against illegal immigration.
Your response deals with a different question: illegal immigration. The original question was about those with valid visas. Nice try & it almost worked.
I don't have anything to add right now.....
...but I want this thread to hit 50 posts! Good job all.
"Unless illegals are doing that, which many are."
Without knowing the exact numbers of how many illegals vs how many legals do it, it's pointless speculation; and since it's legal, it's doubly pointless.
"Everyone including yours?"
Trying to set up some sort of straw man?
"Your response deals with a different question: illegal immigration. The original question was about those with valid visas. Nice try & it almost worked."
Please clarify? I've pointed out the arguments against illegal immigrants can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, thus, the arguments appear based on fear of all immigrants(xenophobia)and not any particular sense of legality.
Without knowing the exact numbers of how many illegals vs how many legals do it, it's pointless speculation; and since it's legal, it's doubly pointless.
So . . . let me make sure I have this straight. According to you, multiple illegal alien families residing in the country illegally in a single family dwelling, is legal. I guess that's logical for an amnesty-phile.
Doubly pointless? Using that twisted logic, I suppose so.
"So . . . let me make sure I have this straight. According to you, multiple illegal alien families residing in the country illegally in a single family dwelling, is legal. I guess that's logical for an amnesty-phile.
Doubly pointless? Using that twisted logic, I suppose so."
Are you saying that everything done here without proper immigration status is illegal? As soon as your visa expires, or if you've crossed the border illegally, there is a law against eating a bagel, and a law against living in a house with your family?
If you break the law by speeding or forgetting to signal your turn (a common enough occurrence), you are also breaking the law by breathing?
Are you saying that everything done here without proper immigration status is illegal?
Not at all.
As soon as your visa expires, or if you've crossed the border illegally, there is a law against eating a bagel, and a law against living in a house with your family?
Under those circumstances:
Eating a bagel: OK.
Living in a house with your family: illegal, thus not OK.
Key word: living, otherwise known as residing, dwelling, being domiciled, quartering, roosting, establishing a home, inhabiting, all illegal without proper immigration status.
Breathing while doing any of the above: OK.
Is there a law against "living in a house with your family"? No. Yet, illegal immigrants presumably have broken a law, so there must be a different law they are guilty of breaking.
If an immigrant is caught and deported from the country, he could be charged with what crime? "Illegal entry", or perhaps "Unlawful Presence". They would not be charged with "Eating a bagel", or "Living with too many people in their house", not even "Sharing their vehicle with their family".
Is there a law against "living in a house with your family"? No.
We have diametrically opposed viewpoints here. I will state it in the clearest, most concise way I know how: It is illegal to live, reside, inhabit, dwell, domicile- pick one- in this country without having first obtained proper immigrant status. It is obvious we will have to agree to disagree here, b/c you fail or refuse to acknowledge the simple fact of current U.S. law.
We can argue the merits, or lack thereof, of the law, but if you won't even admit it as it currently exists, then we're both wasting our time.
Two things I will close with:
1. You were unaware of the source of education funding; and,
2. You refuse to acknowledge current immigration law.
Consequently, as with many internet bloggers, your postings are ill-informed, erroneous, and misguided.
David Solway provides the best definition of your mindset I've seen to date:
"What we call “the left” or “the new liberalism” is only the social reification of delusion and hypocrisy, a peculiar amalgam of orphaned intelligence and prolonged emotional adolescence. Aside from those who exploit the movement for their own personal profit — the plutocrats and the power-mongers — it comprises an army of rote myrmidons led by a class of intellectual prodigies who, regrettably, have never grown up."
I have yet to find a better or more accurate description of the leftist mentality.
"We have diametrically opposed viewpoints here. I will state it in the clearest, most concise way I know how: It is illegal to live, reside, inhabit, dwell, domicile- pick one- in this country without having first obtained proper immigrant status. It is obvious we will have to agree to disagree here, b/c you fail or refuse to acknowledge the simple fact of current U.S. law.
We can argue the merits, or lack thereof, of the law, but if you won't even admit it as it currently exists, then we're both wasting our time."
You are missing the point here. The law is very precise--simple unauthorized presence in the US is a crime, not 'having too many people in the house while also committing another crime'.
You are conflating the two concepts.
"Two things I will close with:
1. You were unaware of the source of education funding; and,
2. You refuse to acknowledge current immigration law.
Consequently, as with many internet bloggers, your postings are ill-informed, erroneous, and misguided."
In my closing:
1.You are apparently ignorant of the use and meaning of "etc", or are grasping at straws to prove me wrong somehow, when all of your other arguments have failed.
2.You have no idea what you are talking about, and simply fear the Mexican "bogeyman" and accept ideas without bothering to reason anything out amicably or logically.
"David Solway provides the best definition of your mindset I've seen to date:"
This is a great example of your ability to leap to conclusions without any thought. I'm nowhere near the left wing politically. Thinking critically about immigration is not a characteristic limited to any political party.
To paraphrase your quote:
"What we call “the right” or “neo-conservatism” is only the social reification of delusion and hypocrisy, a peculiar amalgam of orphaned intelligence and prolonged emotional adolescence. Aside from those who exploit the movement for their own personal profit — the plutocrats and the power-mongers — it comprises an army of rote myrmidons led by a class of intellectual prodigies who, regrettably, have never grown up."
Those on the right are intellectual prodigies? Why, thank you!
That'll certainly be news to the media, Hollywood, and 'enlightened' Democrats, such as John 'not-gonna-pay-home-state-taxes-on-my-yacht' Kerry; the late liberal-lion of the Senate, 'no-windmills-where-I-moor-my-yacht' Teddy 'Chappaquiddick' Kennedy; Queen Bee Nancy Pelosi; the 'Friends of Angelo' banking tag team of Chris Dodd and Bawney Fwank, et al.
Post a Comment
<< Home