Democrats & Liberals Archives

America's Birthright of Freedom

It’s not often that I agree with Alan Keyes, but this is one of those times. He hit it on the nail: Conservatives should not mess with the Fourteenth Amendment, because once birthright citizenship goes, Citizenship does indeed become a grant of the government, even for folks born right here in the states, a grant that can be rescinded, or never given to certain classes of people, born American.

It would be ironic for Republicans seeking to make political hay over the matter of illegal immigration to basically screw every American in order to avoid the moral hazard of a few souls having a few anchor babies. It would be a sad day in America, and a fulfillment of the whole notion that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, and get neither.

As a liberal, I am an advocate for the use of Government's power for populist purposes, for the good of the average person. But as a liberal, I am also wary of Government's power, and believe that the government can impinge upon rights when given the power it's given without certain checks and balances.

I believe giving a little bit too much help, and too much protection to the rights of Americans is better, if we are to err, than erring on the side of making government a servant of the elite, and a more able intruder into innocent American's lives. As the strength of the government's ability to influence people's lives increases, so must increase the obligations of that government to its people, and the means people have to defend their rights.

I am glad to be born an American, glad to know that I don't need to pass some test, espouse loyalty to a King, recite a creed of some church, or do some other cockamamie thing to proclaim myself a citizen.

And you know what? You, reading this, should be glad, too. If you are an American citizen, you are so for reasons no politician can warp or twist. You are American for a simple reason: when you came out of your mother's womb, you came to the right place. If you believe in God, you can say you are an American simply because God chose you to be, and no other reason. If you don't? Well you're just lucky, and that's that.

It's little stunts like this that make me concerned about the Republicans, really. To satisfy their few most rabid folllowers, the GOP seems willing to take up all the old hobby horses of a politics that lead us to Civil War. From secession itself, to nullification, it seems like Republicans are reviving the ghosts of the strife that tore this country apart.

Worse yet, they're betraying one of their party's shining moments, when they helped end slavery and set us on the path to ending second-class citizenship.

If the Party of Lincoln would sell out the Legacy of Lincoln to appeal to the lowest common denominator of their party, then they are well and truly lost.

If, however, Republicans can recognize, like Alan Keyes did, that birthright citizenship protects America's freedom, that it serves as an essential check against Government's power, then they too can speak out to protect one of this nation's most precious rights against a government's encroachment.

They can also (wink wink) take away a potential bludgeon that Democrats might use against their party. Believe me, it's not hard to argue for the right to be an American from birth. It's a blessing that all born Americans share. The question is simple: would you have liked some Bureaucrat or some judge deciding whether you had the privileges and rights Americans enjoy?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2010 1:12 PM
Comments
Comment #305298

Stephen, I was listening to some liberal talk radio on satellite in a rental car a couple of days ago and some right wing guy called up and was talking about repealing the 14th amendment. He also mentioned that the line, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” gives a loophole to deny the child of illegal immigrants citizenship rights. I’m sure this guy heard this nonsense on right wing talk radio or TV. This clause is about people with diplomatic immunity from our laws and the last time I checked all immigrants legal or otherwise were still subject to the laws of this country.

I do understand the frustration with the issue of illegal immigration and the problems of having to grant citizenship to someone whose parents came here illegally just to give a child US citizenship. But repealing the 14th amendment is not the way to do it.

I think this issue is a lot of bluster with no hope of it ever gaining traction. The 14th Amendment will not be repealed.

Posted by: tcsned at August 5, 2010 2:27 PM
Comment #305299

One thing for sure that illegal immigration has emanated throughout our nation, like someone screeching their finger nails over a blackboard; a political headache that will not go away. Arizona’s policing laws are now the main event above other resounding issues, other than the wars abroad. It’s become an explosive situation that together Democrats and Republicans have allowed to get into a chaotic mess. None of this prodigious exploitation of the US taxpayer is conveyed by the Liberal progressive media? The unremitting lies we have been sold about which involves astronomical costs and the numbers of persons, which have succeeded in stealing past our only line of defense of US border Patrol.

Americans have grasped the deleterious spread of Sanctuary Cities, in Arizona and many other locations, where many innocent citizens have died at the hands of illegal aliens; an occurrence that stays hidden in the shadows. This is where each former government’s failure, has not exhibited any real restrictions on this invasion. This is the incomings of deprived people, hoping to gain admittance to the US welfare programs. This arises with the unborn babies of expectant foreign mothers, who know reaching our nation, means free pre-natal treatment, birthing and costs of housing, and a host of other giveaways while the child grows up. Whereas those who came to our country legally and citizens, whom are chased down by debt collection businesses and could eventually end up in court? While the illegal alien parents who are destitute, walk away owing thousands of dollars and paying nothing.

Consider this excerpt about a family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.” AS I SEE IT? ONLY ILLEGAL PARENTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVE JUST SLIPPED INTO AMERICA, THAT NEW BABY SHOULD BE DENIED CITIZENSHIP UNLESS ONE PARENT IS A CITIZEN ALREADY.

It’s an impossibility to cover the war that is going on within our borders, whether its the criminal enterprises from across our national border, the rampant drunken drivers, the propagation of child molestation or drug traffic. For those Americans who prefer to research their own information—start of by eying NumbersUSA website, followed by Fair and CIR. The unbelievable price we pay for not sealing our borders, in human life and the expenditures our government and special interests don’t want you to know. The foundation of this problem has always been cheap labor for businesses, which the owners pay nothing towards their illegal labor, left as always for US taxpayers to provide for? The corruption at the highest echelon of those we vote into power is hard to remove once they have settled into career cycle, which you can read about at Judicial Watch.

CALL THE CAPITOL AT 202-224-3121 AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

This issue of the 14th Amendment need not be changed; we as a sovereign nation have a right to remove the illegal mother and therefore the child who will obviously leave also. I have heard that welfare checks are forwarded out the country for that particular child, but this also must be repealed. We must close these wide open loopholes that exist, which is costing billions in your dollars, taken through your taxes. As an independent country our politicians should be serving the people, not foreign nationals who have unheeded our laws. November will be a good time to clear-up the corruption in Washington, in each state and abruptly remove all lawmakers who are pushing any kind of—AMNESTY. Corruption is proliferating in the halls of power. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) tore apart E-Verify as a permanent powerful tool, to classify and eject illegal labor from nationwide work sites. YES! American will approve new legal Professional immigrants, but not those people who are going to be a public charge?

Posted by: Brittanicus at August 5, 2010 3:32 PM
Comment #305300

tcsned-
I also think that it is unlikely that the 14th Amendment would be repealed, or amended, at least in the near term. But I think Republicans could do a lot of damage to things if this kind of thing is allowed to continue. I want the general mood of my country to be that we reject any such sort of backsliding on civil liberties. I don’t even want this to be a long term consideration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2010 3:37 PM
Comment #305304

From the link provided by Mr. Daugherty here is what Keyes said, “Keyes suggested that he shared the concern over so-called “anchor babies” with Graham and his allies, but he said that “the 14th Amendment is not the problem.” Rather, he seemed to suggest, it’s a mistaken interpretation of the amendment that’s at fault.”

As a matter of course, some folks don’t bother to read an entire article, or if they do, just remember the parts that suit them.

From an article in Townhall here is what Keyes is talking about…

“The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement. But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 4:43 PM
Comment #305305

From the link provided by Mr. Daugherty here is what Keyes said, “Keyes suggested that he shared the concern over so-called “anchor babies” with Graham and his allies, but he said that “the 14th Amendment is not the problem.” Rather, he seemed to suggest, it’s a mistaken interpretation of the amendment that’s at fault.”

As a matter of course, some folks don’t bother to read an entire article, or if they do, just remember the parts that suit them.

From an article in Townhall here is what Keyes is talking about…

“The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement. But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 4:46 PM
Comment #305307

Brittanicus-
You should slow down the speed you’re throwing at so I can at least get my shovel up to deflect some of it from my face.

In terms of being chased by debt collectors? That owes more to the way we’ve shifted (unfortunately, in many respects) to a credit based economy. We’re being chased by debt collectors because our economy encouraged people to go into debt, rather than raising wages. It’s not because they’re living on public assistance.

Interesting that the Right has people going after relatively powerless illegal immigrants, rather than after the excessively powerful Wall Street fat cats. Interesting that they lay off people by the tens of thousands, and ship jobs overseas, yet the people we’re supposed to worry about are the folks on public assistance, the anchor babies.

Also, the border is not our only line of defense. We have the ICE and other organizations, Federal Organization, able to operate within our territories, our states. If we strengthen it, and write the laws with a more clever approach, we can forgo this border obsession, and get immigrants where we’re most likely to find them.

But as for Arizona? Look, it might not be what you like, but the constitution clearly puts immigration laws in the bailiwick of the Federal government, and the States are not allowed to intrude on that. It’s not Arizona’s place to rewrite the law of a sovereign nation for itself. We have one set of immigration laws, not fifty.

As for Sanctuary Cities, I do not approve of them, but I believe there’s a legal justification for what they do, and it runs along the same lines: illegal immigration is a federal crime, and cities and states must volunteer and undergo training in order to get delegated the power to enforce those laws. Sanctuary cities simply say that they will take the default position of letting the Federal Government enforce Federal Law, and simply not cooperate. There is no law on the books against that, nor, due to the Tenth Amendment, can there be. The Tenth Amendment more or less says that States cannot be commandeered to enforce Federal Law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment #305309

Royal Flush-
I read the article. Remember, though, my first paragraph:

Conservatives should not mess with the Fourteenth Amendment, because once birthright citizenship goes, Citizenship does indeed become a grant of the government, even for folks born right here in the states, a grant that can be rescinded, or never given to certain classes of people, born American.

I never mentioned his attitude on anchor babies, or his legal justification.

But that justification seems pretty lame to me. The question would be, on what grounds does one child born in the US get citizenship, and another not?

In this case, we have a footnote in one decision by one judge. That doesn’t make a law. You need something binding like a decision.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #305311

Mr. Daugherty writes; “You need something binding like a decision.”

As the Townhall piece said Mr. Daugherty, “…we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.”

Why are you so certain that Justice Brennan in 1982 had a better sense of the amendment than all that went before?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #305313

Mr. Daugherty asks, “The question would be, on what grounds does one child born in the US get citizenship, and another not.”

“The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

I would ask Mr. Daugherty, if it is so obvious to you that these children born here of illegal alien parents should be granted citizenship, why is it not so obvious to all the other nations of the world?

Is it required of one when they change parties that they must no longer use their brains and logic to determine the answer to such a simple thing? Are you following your own thinking on this or merely following the party line?

Let me pose a ridiculous scenerio to you Mr. Daugherty. Suppose someone, not my wife, gives birth in my home. Is that baby then part of my family? Am I obligated to assume responsibilty for that child? Wouldn’t most people say that’s just silly? Just because the child was born in my home doesn’t make that child part of my family.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 7:05 PM
Comment #305315

Please stop calling these children “anchor babies”. This a a term that repubs and conservatives came up with. As Jon Stewart so nicely said, “to these parents and families they are miracle babies” It is bad enough that we suggest the parents of these babies don’t love them and only had the babies to help them (the parents) out. But to call babies such disrespectable names is shameful. They are babies. This is racist and equally as disgusting as the names babies and young african-american children were called in the south years ago.

Posted by: Carolina at August 5, 2010 8:11 PM
Comment #305321

Royal Flush-

Let’s start with the law as written:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Whatever his intentions, the Senator from Michigan failed to write his interpretation into the law. But even granting his case, the issue becomes one not only of the law as it has been.

One particularly relevant case was the Wong Kim Ark case. The court decided as follows:

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.

Laws don’t necessarily get interpreted as intended by their authors, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the legal precedent.

Indeed, as the default approach of those on the right was to attack the 14th Amendment Birthright Clause, that shows just how traditional the whole idea is.

The case of children born to illegal aliens getting citizenship is not airtight, but it’s got more historical weight on its side than the reverse.

Carolina-
Having read your reasoning, I agree.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #305322

I agree with you that we should continue to recognize everyone born in the U.S. as an American citizen, frustrations with immigration notwithstanding.

As I have written before, the birth rate in Mexico is dropping like a stone. Within the decade, the Mexican rate will be lower than the U.S. rate. As this generation ages, the problem will go away. Someday there will be a shortage of Mexicans. Of course, not all illegal aliens are Mexican and we will probably get some other sorts of illegal Aliens in the future, but it is a big deal that we share a border with Mexico, making it easier for people to come up and do a “baby drop.”

Anyway, we should not act out of panic of today and make a decision that will be bad in the future.

Carolina & Stephen

This is not a new issue or a new term. I heard the term anchor babies used more than twenty years ago. It refers to exactly what it means. A couple of our German friends, who loved America, purposely went on a extended vacation in the U.S. so that her baby would be born in the USA and acquire citizenship at birth.

The idea is exactly that you can “anchor” your child or your entire family in the U.S. if you have an American citizen child.

My daughter is a citizen of Brazil because she was born there and remains an American at birth because of her parentage. You could argue that she could provide an anchor to Brazil. The term is only insulting or racist if the person hearing it is insulted or racist.

BTW - I think the case for children of illegal aliens being citizens at birth is indeed airtight. They ARE citizens by all our laws and traditions. I think it is silly to talk about it at all. The only problem is - as it has always been - is proof. If an illegal alien gives birth outside a hospital (as some do), it might be difficult to prove that the child was born in (say) El Paso instead of Ciudad Juarez. The kid may be literally undocumented.

Posted by: C&J at August 5, 2010 9:20 PM
Comment #305325

C&J

I am aware of why they are called anchor babies. I don’t care where the term came from-we all know how and why it is being used. It’s being used to denigrate the parents and families and to diminish the babies. It’s a disgusting term. But this is typical. I grew up in the south and continually listened to ignorant justification for calling African-Americans and their babies all sorts of names. When you would call someone on it-they would always justify the racist name calling by saying it wasn’t racist-“its just the way we talk down here-don’t mean nothin by it-it done hurt no one and plus I ain’t no racist- it was an innocent remark-only a racist would think it was racist.”

And yes I am offended by this word and I would imagine that most mexicans legal or not would also be offended.

Posted by: Carolina at August 5, 2010 9:54 PM
Comment #305327

Well Carolina - I have called my own daughter and anchor baby, although we don’t plan to use her as such.

The term is descriptive of the concept. I heard the term first used by my German friends and then used it with my own daughter. People do, BTW, use their kids the way we find offensive. Maybe that is the offensive part. People get “offended” when someone accurately describes something they are doing that they think is a little dishonest.

The term is not intrinsically insulting and has no connection to race.

You know what Emerson said about people’s judgment of the world being a confession of their own characters. That whole “racism” thing is way overused and I refuse to be intimidated by it. It just does not apply in this situation.

However, in the interest of not upsetting people ignorant of the term’s generalized meaning, I will refrain from using it, if you can give me an equally descriptive term to replace it.

I know you like the term “miracle babies” but how does that specifically describe a child who, as an American citizen, provides an (sorry for the word) anchor to the U.S. for a that child and perhaps sometime in the future for his/her family? If you want to describe the concept, what term do you honestly suggest?

BTW - I support the idea that a any child born in the U.S. is an American citizen at birth. I do not believe that there is any serious threat to the concept. It is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

BTW2 - That so many people want to immigrant to America is still a good thing. The thing we know about ALL immigrants to the U.S. is that they think America is a better place for them than whatever country they came from and they are probably right. We Americans should appreciate what a great country we have and complain about it a little less.

Posted by: C&J at August 5, 2010 11:05 PM
Comment #305330

Talk about demeaning. I think that Carolina is quite intelligent and “gets” the basis of the name used by many in describing a child born here without documented parents. It creates an unfair stigma on a person who was, and remains innocent of their conception and birth.
Its’ use has become more rampant of late, and the biggest reason for that is that it stirs the pot and gives bullies the fuel that they thrive on. But then, that would pretty well describe the attitude of the far-leaning rights in general, when there is blood in the air.

Posted by: jane doe at August 6, 2010 1:02 AM
Comment #305332

It seems natural enough to me that if you are born here, you are American. I suppose at some age you can rescind this label if you should choose to do so.

A bit of difference I have with the original post is claiming nullification as some Republican tool. It’s a shame if you mention the word in a court, you will be booted from the jury.
It is the right, and duty of jurors, in my opinion to use the power they are given to nullify a prosecution, if they see fit to do so. Prosecutor’s have great power, and can wreak lots of havoc on society. There certainly is no reason for jurors to go along with something they perceive as unjust, or immoral. In fact, they have a duty to nullify any law they perceive as unjust.

If more juries were aware of this power perhaps our prison’s wouldn’t be as full of pot smokers and bureaucratic violators, for the attempt to moralize and generate revenues by criminalizing common behavior and either poverty or the complexity of tax and traffic laws.

VOID isn’t the only power people have to make changes in society.

Posted by: gergle at August 6, 2010 1:51 AM
Comment #305336

Gergle-
I’m not talking about jury nullification, I’m talking the pre-civil war doctrine of the states essentially trying to reject the notion that a Federal Law is applicable to them on Tenth Amendment grounds.

C&J-
I can understand the frustration that Carolina has, because the term’s being used in many ways the same way welfare queen was used in the seventies and eighties, as a means to indicate that folks, given certain assistance, were psychopathically having children just for the sake of making money off of them.

It demeans the person by overshadowing the normal reasons people have kids which are likely perfectly applicable for most immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Don’t go accusing people of being prejudice because they complain about this. the “they who smelt it dealt it” gambit’s kind of insulting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2010 7:48 AM
Comment #305337

Thank you-Jane Doe

Posted by: Carolina at August 6, 2010 7:50 AM
Comment #305338

Jane

As I asked Carolina, what to you propose to describe the situation where a baby or child is born in the U.S. and so anchors a family to our country? It is done both purposely and by default.

I know that you want to shut down debate by calling things unpleasant. The reality is unpleasant. Tell me how to accurately describe it w/o that term and I will use your terminology.

Let me repeat, lest you attack a straw man, that I am firmly in favor of birthright citizenship and I believe there is no chance it will be rescinded. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that people have not figured out that it is a way to game the system.

Posted by: C&J at August 6, 2010 7:51 AM
Comment #305339

Thanks also to you, Stephen.

Ya’ll have done a better job defending my honor than I could have done.

C&J-I really have nothing further to say on the topic. I learned a long time ago that you state your case and then leave it alone. Any further statements are just efforts to change someone’s mind. I’ll believe my truth and you believe yours. At least maybe some here will find new ways to talk about the wonderous gift of babies. Much of my career was spent working with low income parents and families with young children (infants, toddlers, and preschoolers) I found most all of them to be mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts, uncles who truly loved their children-where they were from, their income level had little to do with how they felt about the miraculous addition to their family.

Posted by: Carolina at August 6, 2010 8:13 AM
Comment #305340

An amendment to the Constitution would be required.
Good luck with that, since Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution (e.g. Article V).

Besides, many Republican and Democrat politicians and want cheap labor, and many Democrat politicians want votes.

So don’t worry. Nothing is likely to change any time soon.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 6, 2010 8:32 AM
Comment #305341

Stephen, sorry, I should have read your link.

Posted by: gergle at August 6, 2010 9:14 AM
Comment #305343

“Screw every American”??? Exaggerated baloney. “A FEW anchor babies”? Try thousands. What is “screwing” Americans is the presence of MILLIONS of illegals. The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job writing the Constitution, but there were problems that they did not, and could not have foreseen…everything from advanced automatic weapons to a tide of lawbreaking immigrants. We DO need to make some changes in our Constitution.

Posted by: capnmike at August 6, 2010 9:39 AM
Comment #305344

Apparently we went through the process of the Civil Rights Act, and all that led up to it, so the Right could argue into the future that there are STILL reasons to hold one group of citizens as a caste higher than another group of citizens…oops! Perhaps the one higher than several. I’m pretty sure the GOP thinks we live in India (pre independence). Republicans are a bullying bunch, but kicking sand in baby’s faces???

Posted by: Marysdude at August 6, 2010 12:04 PM
Comment #305345

capnmike-
No, no. Most Americans aren’t losing jobs to Illegal Aliens. They’re losing jobs because a financial industry played with fire and burned the house down. Republicans are focusing all this attention on immigration, because they can get people to vent their frustrations on a fairly powerless minority group, rather than confront the people who really screwed things up.

It’s no coincidence that as the war in Iraq got worse, that as the economy destabilized, the focus on immigration became more fierce.

We do not need to make potentially disastrous changes to one of our most basic civil rights, just to get at a minor group to stop bringing having their kids here.

I think it’s high time conservatives learn that being conservative does not mean seeking drastic changes to the way we run our government, the way we interpret our constitution, the way we even define citizenship every ten seconds.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2010 12:08 PM
Comment #305348

Carolina,
I just get really pissed when those who lurk here are waiting for the blood to start pooling in the waters. The mindset is frustrating, to say the least. The mentality is sad, and the need to inflict injury is supreme. That, and the pack mentality make for heightened frustration when trying to legitimize and support a theory. I’ve been here for years and over time the only thing that changes are the names.
And jack……your little hiatus did nothing to change your methods of attack. The shapeshifting was merely a brief respite.

Posted by: jane doe at August 6, 2010 3:32 PM
Comment #305349

Jane Doe: well said :)

Posted by: womanmarine at August 6, 2010 3:43 PM
Comment #305350


Stephen, the reason people are considering drastic measures is because the feel they have lost representation by their government. Both political parties are doing the bidding of the corporations, against the will of the people.

It is as if the Democratic Party is saying that it agreed to corpocracy so it has to be a good thing.

The Republican Party has no scruples. It is using the unrest to propagandize against the Democrats even though the Republicans are the primary promoters and producers for the corpocracy and will continue to do so. Example, they are selling the false assumption that if you reduce the size of government, it will weaken the corpocracy when the opposite is true.

Both parties know that the venting and calls for drastic measures are just that because they are in control of the situation.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2010 3:48 PM
Comment #305352

Thanks womanmarine!
I miss hearing from you, but can understand why you avoid posting. I hate watching this site “morph”….but nothing stays the same forever….so I’m told.

Posted by: jane doe at August 6, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #305364

Jane Doe-I certainly agree.

Again, It is a sad day in our country that instead of dealing with real issues we are blaming a segment of our society that is struggling to just get by(last comments by S. Daugherty). Shades of the “60’s and welfare to help poor families (mostly black)-anyone remember the country song-welfare cadillac.

I am always amazed at how so many Americans attack the less fortunate and will defend to their dying days the real culprits-wall street, corporate greed, the military complex, unregulated capitalism and the ever consuming for profit mentality-just to name a few.

Posted by: Carolina at August 7, 2010 8:00 AM
Comment #305365

Can someone please tell me…as a comparison, how much harm have a few million ‘anchor’ babies caused America over the past eighty or so years, compared to the harm AIG/Goldman/Lehman/BOA did in ten years. All this hooplah about immigration is a shill’s idea to divert our citizenry from the real issues facing us. These so-called ‘super-patriots’ are bringing down America faster than al Qaida ever could.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 7, 2010 8:14 AM
Comment #305366

AMEN! Marysdude

Posted by: Carolina at August 7, 2010 8:36 AM
Comment #305372

Jane Doe and Carolina:

You are certainly right about one reason I don’t post much any more. I find many of the posts by supposed Christians painful to read.

The other reason is that after 17 years from my first diagnosis and treatment, my breast cancer has returned. I have more on my plate now and for that reason don’t post much. But I will say that the first reason is the biggest reason.

I sometimes wonder what God thinks of some of the posts on Watchblog.

Ruth

Posted by: womanmarine at August 7, 2010 10:56 AM
Comment #305375

Ruth, I am sorry to hear of the return of your cancer, and the struggles that accompany it! Best wishes to you in your fight, and hopes & prayers for another recovery.
I’ve wondered the same thing over the years, and not just here in this site. It would seem that those who profess their faith and belief the strongest, are those who spew the ugliest hate and venom-filled thoughts and comments. Just kind of doesn’t make sense to me.
If you ever need to talk, or vent, or whatever…
davidsonsk@comcast.net
Please stay in touch.

Posted by: jane doe at August 7, 2010 12:59 PM
Comment #305377

dude….you’re being way too logical with your query, you silly thing!
It’s just more like having so much antagonism inside that you gotta keep hitting that release valve. Their beliefs don’t take into consideration personal freedoms of any that don’t fall into lockstep. Having those beliefs and being able to live by/with them are the biggest things they fight to destroy. A man and his preference in a life partner, a woman and her personal health needs, a choice in spiritual beliefs have become what they feel they must control. Yet we are the ones attacked regularly for stepping over the lines.
Never really occurred to me, rather than trying to get someone to understand my rights being just as legitimate as anyones, to just go out and shoot ‘em.
K…gotta go for now, there must be a tree or two around here I can find to hug!

Posted by: jane doe at August 7, 2010 1:14 PM
Comment #305386


Illegal immigration is finally a political issue and both sides are playing to it. The Republicans exaggerate the problems caused by illegal immigration and the Democrats are in denial.

Marysdude, the corporate financial sector caused great to us. This does not mean that other corporate interests aren’t responsible for doing harm as well.

I live in an economically depressed area of the country. When unemployment was around 5% nationally, it was double digit here. It is even worse here now. Jobs are rare and the competition for them is great.

This past week, an illegal immigrant was arrested for multiple traffic violations. He will be tried and then deported. He was working two jobs, one definately and one possibly full time. Both jobs are corporate jobs.

Posted by: jlw at August 7, 2010 3:31 PM
Comment #305397

jlw,

Are the corporations that hired this man being punished to the same extent the man is? I empathize and sympathize with all who have lost their jobs because of what corporate financiers have done to America, but I’ve yet to see a good reason to become a nation with lynch mentality.

Fine every Norde Americano who hires an illegal 110% of the monies they saved by hiring that illegal, and illegal immigration will come to a stop immediately. Until and unless that takes place we need to use our magnificent brain power to create enough jobs to go around. We do not have manufacturing to hone our innovative skills, so perhaps this would answer both problems?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 7, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #305403

Jane, Carolina et al

Let me repeat what I said in my original post. I support birthright citizenship and don’t believe that the ideas to change it are serious.

You guy are playing games with terms. Instead of debating facts, you are attacking language and then feeling very self satisfied on your supposedly advanced morality.

People having babies in the U.S. to give them and perhaps the rest of the family is something that is done. As I explained, a couple of my German friends did it. When my daughter was born in Brazil, we registered her there too, although I doubt she will ever use it. These are anchor babies in that they tie them to the country. Like an … anchor.

Now, what did I say that you disagree with? You don’t like the term anchor baby, which I explained is a term that is at least a couple decades old (probably more) and has been used in my own case and in the case of our German friends w/o an insult intended or taken. I said that I am willing to use a different term, if you can think of one that describes the situation.

Sorry to interfere with your self congratulations, but I cannot figure out why you think it is justified.

Posted by: C&J at August 7, 2010 8:45 PM
Comment #305406

C&J- I have no intention of taking the bait. I stated my reasons I see no need to restate them.

I think I’ll go to bed now as I am really tired from patting myself on the back. Self congratulations can be so tiring but of course you would know that since I am sure you are patting yourself on the back for your quick quips and sly but demeaning comments.

Posted by: Carolina at August 7, 2010 9:38 PM
Comment #305409


Marysdude, the businesses have not been charged. That is why presidents like Bush and Obama should be the ones being punished. We have an immigration law, the migrants are in violation of that law, the employers are in violation of that law. and the President is in violation of that law.

Our government and the business sector are co-conspirators. There is no way that businesses could do this without the acquiescence and support of the government. Obama is more guilty than Golden Corral.

Oh how nice, Obama has stepped up enforcement. Political scam.

Why do we even bother with an oath of office anymore.

Posted by: jlw at August 7, 2010 10:26 PM
Comment #305411
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It would be ironic for Republicans seeking to make political hay over the matter of illegal immigration to basically screw every American in order to avoid the moral hazard of a few souls having a few anchor babies.

Wow. How absolutely pathetic is that?
Seriously.
How often do you ever something so out of touch, and pathetically fueled by blind partisan hatred of the OTHER Party?

If you like that sort of thing, you have come to the right place.

Any way, illegal immigration is not an issue about race, color, ethnicity, class, or nationality, since illegal aliens are of many races from many nations.

But that doesn’t stop some people from playing the race card, and/or using this issue to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, does it?

Those trying to make a race, color, ethnicity, class, or nationality issue of it do so because all of their arguments are weak and unsustainable excuses and common tactics to divert attention away from these serious problems and burdens:

  • Crime is a serious issue, but only part of the many issues costing U.S. tax payers net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year; some estimates place losses much higher;

  • burden on education systems;

  • burden on healthcare systems;

  • burden on hospital systems; 84 hospitals closed/closing in California; 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital; border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.!

  • burden on welfare systems; over 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare (often via welfare for their anchor babies born in U.S. hospitals, at U.S. tax payers expense);

  • burden on Medicaid and welfare systems;

  • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

  • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

  • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

  • burden on prison systems; 29% of state and federal prisoners (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;

  • Many millions of displaced American workers; partly because half of all illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes, and greedy employers that don’t pay unemployment taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, etc.; Ask your Congress persons why we keep bringing in millions of foreign workers a year to take American jobs when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed (not even including the tens millions of existing illegal foreign workers in the U.S. and the millions coming to the U.S. illegally every year)? If that bothers you, then please see: AmericanWorkers.org ;
  • voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped now, and do not want another amnesty program (a.k.a. guest-worker program) that will quadruple the problem, just like the amnesty of 1986 did.

It is despicable how many irresponsible incumbent politicians are now pitting illegal aliens and American citizens against each other for profits and votes !

Republican and Democrat politicians want cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want voters, and the voters continue to reward both with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

Irresponsible incumbent politicians have ignored this problem and the voters for decades, but the voters keep right on re-electing, rewarding, and empowering those very same, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, irresponsible, FOR-SALE, parasitic, incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #305415

Crime

More Crime…

More crimes that should have never happened…

Many illegal aliens are arrested for other crimes, and released, over and over and over, to commit more crimes, until eventually they kill someone. Their anonymity and practically being conditioned by repeatedly being released to commit more crimes, is appalling.

But, most Republican politicians and Democrat politicians want cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes, and the voters repeatedly reward BOTH with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

So it gets simply gets worse and worse.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #305421

d.a.n.,

A recent study of the ‘problem’ in Georgia showed a net loss of nearly a billion dollars because of illegals, but if all illegals left the state at one time it would cost about 750 million in lost jobs (because illegals spend their money too) and taxes (some illegals pay income taxes plus property and sales taxes) and work now being done that it would take time to get done without them. A net loss of about 250 million. Your figures may be exaggerated.

I’m not poo-pooing the problem, but just because both sides of this issue are looney, is no excuse for everyone to join them.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 8, 2010 6:42 AM
Comment #305423

Illegal aliens cause NET losses of an estimated $70 Billion to $327 Billion.
Half of illegal aliens pay NO taxes.
And what is the cost of crime?
What is the cost of murdered police officers?
29% of all people incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens (source: GAO report D05646R: www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html).

Any one who calls that looney is not only looney, but despicable.

Tell the survivors of all of those murdered police officers and other victims of crime by illegal aliens that they are “looney”.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2010 9:14 AM
Comment #305424

jlw-
A lot of the nuttier ideas, politically speaking, are piling up on one side of the fence. Democrats aren’t calling for a partial or total repeal of the 14th Amendment.

We can talk of punishment here, but is punishment what we want, or a change in policy? The selling point for Democrats, I would say, is that Republican Party has gone completely off the deep end, and are leading the nation into political pyschosis.

Are the Democrats much better? At this point, yes. At this point, they at least are situated somewhere around the center, and at least somewhat in reality. Democrats, for the most part, are not kidding themselves about the causes of the various crises.

Our problem is doing something about it. The natural inclination for an electorate is to punish the party in power, when things aren’t going well. That would be valid, given the Democrat’s performance, but for a couple problems.

First, the opposition party has totally snarled the process of legislation. Performance is suffering because of something Democrats have no control over. Democrats could do the cots and debates drill, but the Republicans would still have to fold in order for the law to pass, and the schedule for passing legislation would still be delayed.

Second, the opposition party is out of its bloody mind. It’s still contemplating additional wars after getting us into and failing to get us out of two of the longest wars in American history. It’s still pushing a continuation of the massive Bush Tax Cuts, despite the fiscal havoc it wrought. It’s still pushing for deregulation and fighting to protect tax breaks for corporations, even after all that’s gone down in the last decade.

Are we just suddenly going to get pure candidates here, ones untainted by the influence of the corporations? No. What we might have to start with is folks who are less influenced, folks who we can actually push into connect with our concerns about excessive power on the business world’s part. Then we ratchet it up, find somebody who’s better than that. We make the best possible choice, even if its badly imperfect, and then make the next choice the same way.

Rather than imagine that somehow, magically, the Republicans will suddenly say “Oh, Democrats lost for being corporate shills, why don’t we go further in purifying ourselves?than they have”, let’s assume what the facts realistically tell us: that on nearly every issue, the Republicans are going to take the more corpocratic position.

Current political signals are being interpreted in terms of a political status quo that diagnoses political problems for the Democrats in terms of a failure to satisfy right-wing interests and compromise well enough with the GOP. If you want voters to replace Democrats with Republicans, keep this in mind: Republicans are running on the status quo, on keeping the insanity of today’s governance just the way it is.

It works for their purposes. They don’t care about government working; they benefit from the perception it doesn’t. They don’t care what their critics say about them. They’ve built a media for themselves so they don’t have to listen to what anybody else says. They don’t care if they seem corpocratic- to them, this is an ideal, and they have brought many of their base voters to agree.

This is not some pure textbook situation of electoral accountability. One party has swaddled itself in a political and media system that is designed specifically to shield it from accountability, and to tunnel it’s voters opinions towards support. You cannot win by saying both parties are the same, because they are not. The weakness of the Democrats is also their strength: they can respond to those outside their party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2010 9:25 AM
Comment #305426

d.a.n.,

It has been a long time since I’ve been called despicable…thanks.

If in fact the violent crime count has been going down, like the FBI stats tell us, over the past twelve years, and is at its lowest rate in decades, and job loss will occur if illegals are taken as a group from our midst, and dollar losses are being greatly exaggerated, I would say that we have the hyperbole factory in gear and it is running smoothly. Again, thanks for your part in that.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 8, 2010 10:26 AM
Comment #305427

More fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan warfare, eh?

Never mind that there’s really no important difference between the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY.

Republicans AND Democrat politicians want cheap labor.

And Democrat politicians want votes too.

So don’t worry Stephen.

You will most likely get your way, despite the majority of Americans that oppose another shamnesty, because the incumbent politicians in BOTH parties want cheap labor and votes, and don’t give a damn what the voters want as long as the majority of voters continue to reward Congress with 90% re-election rates, despite dismal 11% approval ratings for Congress.

If anything happens in the near future, there will most likely be another “shamnesty” like the “shamnesty” of 1986 (by the Ronald Reagan Administration), which more than quintupled the problem.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure and these abuses, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2010 10:30 AM
Comment #305428
Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., It has been a long time since I’ve been called despicable…thanks.
Read carefully, because I did not call you “despicable”.

But if the shoe fits, then feel free to wear it?

Marysdude wrote: If in fact the violent crime count has been going down, like the FBI stats tell us …
If it’s really decreased, that’s good, but the level of crime is still high, because hundreds of police officers and thousands of Americans are murdered each year by illegal aliens.

Even one is one too many.
But some people like to make excuses for that.
Some people ignore the fact that many illegal aliens are essentially anonymous, despite being repeatedly arrested and released to commit more crimes … until eventually, they kill someone.
That anonymity makes the criminal illegal aliens more brazen.
Some people like to make all sorts of rationalizations for that.
And that is truly despicable.
But what is most despicable are the incumbent politicians in BOTH political parties, who not only allow it, but perpetuate it, because they want cheap labor and votes.
And the majority of voters are culpable for that too, since they repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.

Also, you conveniently ignored the fact that 29% of all persons incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
That’s almost 1/3 of everyone in federal prison! ! !
And merely tresspassing our borders is only a misdemeanor.
That’s from a GAO report 5646 GAO federal report.

Illegal aliens simply looking for work are not the real villians.
The true villians are the despicable incumbent politicians in BOTH political parties, who not only allow it, but perpetuate it, because they want cheap labor and votes.
Anyone who does not think that is despicable, is despicable too.
If that offends anyone, then it’s probably because the truth hurts.

Marysdude wrote: If in fact the violent crime count has been going down, like the FBI stats tell us, over the past twelve years, and is at its lowest rate in decades, and job loss will occur if illegals are taken as a group from our midst, and dollar losses are being greatly exaggerated, I would say that we have the hyperbole factory in gear and it is running smoothly. Again, thanks for your part in that.
The only hyperbole here is your comments that rationalize illegal aliens, their crimes, and insult the numerous victims and survivors of crime by illegal aliens.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2010 10:52 AM
Comment #305434


Dan, the people who usually quote government crime statistics don’t live in high crime, low income neighborhoods.

No doubt, the supporters have empathy and sympathy for the victims of illegal migrants just as they do for displaced workers but, it is an imperative of both parties to break the workers and force them to be competitive with third world workers.

Stephen, Yea, I here you. We should not return the Republicans to power because they are 100% corpocracy and the Democrats are only 90% corpocracy. The reason that Republicans are able to sell their brand of crap to the workers is because the Democrats have abandoned them for lower labor costs and higher returns on investments.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, the jobs to China bills and GBL.
All were passed against the will of the majority.

During the Bush administration, a majority of Democrats voted to pass nearly all of the Republican policies.

You want to ignore the facts and pretend.

Outsourcing for cheap labor, insourcing for cheap labor, massive waste, fraud and abuse of the people and taxpayers, mandatory for profit health care championed by the Democratic Party. The message for workers could not be more clear, blue collar workers don’t belong in the middle class.

40.8 million on food stamps and an economy that can’t even produce minimum wage jobs.

All that right wing rhetoric being spewed by the Republicans is just that. If they did all they say they will, we would be back to the Revolution and the next one might not be stolen by the wealth. The power brokers aren’t that stupid but they are counting on the people’s desire to remain ignorant and rhetorically inclined.

Revolution: A situation in which those who want power convince the lower classes in to overthrowing those who have power and replacing them with those who want power.

No matter which party wins the next election, it will be business as usual while each party uses its brand of rhetoric to proclaim that the other party is the bad guys.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #305438

d.a.n.,

I randomly selected twenty two murders of police officers (in line of duty) between 1909 and 2007:

2 in California
1 in Wisconsin
1 in Georgia
6 in New York
2 in D.C.
1 in Pennsylvania
1 in Maryland
1 in Oklahoma
3 in Texas
1 in Iowa
1 in Virginia
1 in Florida
1 in Michigan

It was as good a cross section as I could come up with. Those murders were committed by:

13 Caucasians (2 killed 2 at the same time)
4 Blacks
1 Mexican (not illegal)
2 Unknown

I’m not ready to assume that the 2 unknown killers were illegal immigrants, but even if I did it would not be the 29% you tout. My information came from WIKI, and I took them in alphabetical order.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 8, 2010 4:14 PM
Comment #305447
jlw wrote: d.a.n, the people who usually quote government crime statistics don’t live in high crime, low income neighborhoods.
Really? And where’s the evidence and research to back that up?

I live a few miles north of Dallas, TX., and crime is quite high. So, that doesn’t help much to corroborate your theory, does it?
On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girl-friend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile.

Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., I randomly selected twenty two murders of police officers (in line of duty) between 1909 and 2007: 2 in California, 1 in Wisconsin, 1 in Georgia, 6 in New York, 2 in D.C., 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Maryland, 1 in Oklahoma, 3 in Texas, 1 in Iowa, 1 in Virginia, 1 in Florida, 1 in Michigan. It was as good a cross section as I could come up with. Those murders were committed by: 13 Caucasians (2 killed 2 at the same time), 4 Blacks, 1 Mexican (not illegal), 2 Unknown. I’m not ready to assume that the 2 unknown killers were illegal immigrants, but even if I did it would not be the 29% you tout.

Feel free anytime to try to disprove the GAO reports.
Your analysis from WIKI is worthless, at best.
But don’t take my word for it.
According to the GAO (source: www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf) 27 percent of all incarcerated in federal prisons were illegal aliens for several consecutive years up to 2005, and then increased to 29% by year 2006.

What part of that GAO report do you not understand:

  • The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in an Apr. 7, 2005 report to Congress entitled “Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails,” informed:
    “When the United States incarcerates criminal aliens—noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally—in federal and state prisons and local jails, the federal government bears much of the costs. It pays to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and reimburses state and local governments for a portion of their costs of incarcerating some, but not all, criminal aliens illegally in the country through the Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Some state and local governments have expressed concerns about the impact that criminal aliens have on already overcrowded prisons and jails and that the federal government reimburses them for only a portion of their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. […] At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004—a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years—about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens—Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP—totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004.”
    Apr. 7, 2005 - U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    “Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails” (363 KB)

  • The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in an article entitled “Criminal Aliens” on its website (accessed July 10, 2007), offered the following:
    “The criminal alien problem is growing. Criminal aliens—non-citizens who commit crimes—are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources. In 1980, our federal and state prisons housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 1999, these same prisons housed over 68,000 criminal aliens. Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates. These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone. New issue paper… Among the alien federal prisoners, over half (55 percent) were illegally in the United States at the time of their conviction. Administering justice to criminal aliens costs the taxpayer dearly. Incarceration of criminal aliens cost an estimated $624 million to state prisons (1999) and $891 million to federal prisons (2002), according to the most recent available figure from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.”
    July 10, 2007 - Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Marysdude wrote: My information came from WIKI, and I took them in alphabetical order.
Which is partially why your WIKI analysis is worthless.

Marysdude,

  • Your list also does not include numerous other murders and crimes, such as Officer Kenneth Collings of the Phoenix Police Department, who was killed in 1988 during the arrest of two robbery suspects at a local bank when one opened fire. One of the robbers, Ismael Conde, was quickly arrested but the other, Rudy Romero, escaped to Mexico. Romero was caught in southern Mexico in 2000 and brought back to stand trial. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office credits help from the Phoenix Police Department, the FBI, the Attorney General for the Republic of Mexico, and the Mexican Federal Agency of Investigation — a rare and welcome act of extradition from our southern neighbor. In March 2003, Romero was sentenced to 98 years in state prison.

  • Your list does not include Marc Atkinson was just 28 when he was shot and killed in a 1999 ambush by an illegal alien from Mexico. Officer Atkinson was a five-year veteran of the Phoenix Police Force, and was survived by his wife Karen, infant son and two siblings. The killer, Felipe Petrona-Cabanas, had around a pound of cocaine in his car when apprehended with two other Mexican nationals. The three came from a farming area in the state of Guerrero near Acapulco, and said they came to the United States to work but couldn’t find any. A notable detail in the case is how an armed citizen, Rory Vertigan, came to the aid of the shot officer and helped apprehend the Mexicans, who certainly would have escaped over the border if they could have.

  • Your list does not include the murder of Kris Eggle, a park ranger in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona on August 9, 2002, was little noted by the media, although the press has paid considerable attention to the deaths of illegal aliens on the border. By contrast, Ranger Eggle was shot down by Mexican drug dealers who were using Organ Pipe as a route for their smuggling. Only 28 when he was murdered, Eggle was a valedictorian and an Eagle Scout who joined the National Park Service because he loved the outdoors. (Organ Pipe is considered to be the most dangerous of the national park system: 200,000 illegal aliens and 700,000 pounds of drugs were intercepted at the park in 2001.) The Eggle family is determined that his death will not be forgotten by working for real border control, including a Washington press conference with Tom Tancredo in the fall of 2002. The Eggles have a family website, www.kriseggle.org, to inform interested parties about what they are doing.

  • Your list does not include Officer Michael Gordon lost his life to a drunk driving illegal alien. The Chicago policeman was in the driver’s seat of his squad car when it was struck by Luis Calle, a Guatemalan whose blood alcohol level was 0.177, twice the legal limit. Another officer, John Delcason, sustained injuries and was in fair condition in the hospital a few days after the incident. Luis Calle died a few hours after striking the police car. Michael Gordon is survived by his wife and four children. Several of his relatives have also been police officers, including his father, brother, uncle and cousin. Before entering the police department, Gordon joined the 81st Airborne right after high school, serving in Bosnia and Korea. As a policeman, he asked to be assigned to a tough part of Chicago because he wanted to do more than just write tickets.

  • Your list does not include Border Patrol Agent James Epling died in performing his duties along the Mexican border, apparently drowning in the Colorado River in pursuit of several illegal aliens and was last seen along the shoreline as he followed the foreigners. He was the seventh Border officer to die in the line of duty in Yuma. Agent Epling was just 24 and was the father of three, going on four. His father-in-law is a retired Border Patrol agent from the McAllen, Texas, sector. Just before disappearing, Epling had pulled a Chinese woman illegal alien out of the river. Three other Chinese were taken into custody the night of the disappearance, along with one Mexican believed to be the smuggler. Although there has been no evidence of foul play actually found, the smuggler can be charged in the death.

So, Marysdude, your incomplete list proves nothing.

Thousands of American citizens are killed every year by illegal aliens (www.VOIAC.org), who are repeatedly arrested and released to commit more crimes.
The revolving door essentially sends a signal that even if arrested and/or deported, they will very likely be released to commit more crimes.
Many police officers are murdered every year by illegal aliens (which are conveniently missing from you list).

I don’t give a damn even if you could prove that illegal aliens commit less crime.
That’s more crime we don’t need, and it’s crime that should have never happened.
Besides, first of all, illegal aliens have already committed a crime by trespassing our borders, so all of them have already committed a that misdemeanor, which is not sufficient to incarcerate them in federal prison.

Feel free anytime to try to disprove the GAO reports.
So, Marysdude, are you saying the government is lying about those percentages?
And it’s quite likely those numbers are conservative, since the federal government is not highly motivated to report or research this issue, which only serves to demonstrate how delinquent and incompetent the federal government actually is.

Believe what you want to believe.
But don’t expect to change my opinion with shoddy research and mere opinion that’s not supported by any facts.

Even if you have some compassion for illegal aliens merely looking for work, where is your compassion for thousands of fellow U.S. Citizens murdered by illegal aliens, every year?
Such compassion for the illegal aliens is severely misplaced, at best.
And those that make excuses, or try to rationalize their crimes by saying their crime rates are no worse than the norm (which is false), are despicable.
The only thing more despicable than that are the incumbent politicians who despicably pit American citizens against each other for profits from cheap labor, and votes.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2010 9:29 PM
Comment #305455

d.a.n.,

27% or 29% are meaningless figures. You are using them only to escalate your point of view to high dudgeon. It is called hyperbole. Most of all prisoners in prison today are there for non-violent crimes. Petty criminals who repeat until they must serve longer and longer sentences (some do it deliberately). An illegal immigrant is no more likely to kill a policeman than anyone else. But your diatribes are way off base in any case. Unless you are willing to kill all those who enter our country illegally, you’ll just have to influence our leadership to reform and enforce. Yelling at those who disagree with you on who is to blame for the problem solves nothing.

You maintain that the only answer is to throw the Congressional bums out and start all over. That is hardly realistic, and it becomes even less realistic since SCOTUS granted corporate nannies the right to take over our government.

I maintain that the best way to take care of it is to convince enough lawmakers that enforcement of laws governing the hiring of illegals may be the only solution. You and our government are pissing into the wind when you take all your venom out on the working smuck who comes here to get a job. Solve the hiring problem and you will have solved the illegal immigration problem.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 8, 2010 11:34 PM
Comment #305456

PS:

I told you up front what my list was and where I took the information from. You are looking at some violent acts that happened close to your home, and figures you select in order to further your views. Random samplings are how averages and percentages are arrived at. The figures I presented are just as accurate and worthy of consideration as those you hand out like candy.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 8, 2010 11:41 PM
Comment #305464
Marysdude wrote: d.a.n., 27% or 29% are meaningless figures.
You wish.
Marysdude wrote: You are using them only to escalate your point of view to high dudgeon.
Those are the facts. If it offends you, then that’s your problem.
Marysdude wrote: It is called hyperbole.
The only hyperbole I see is in your comments, shoddy research, and refusal to recognize hard facts.
Marysdude wrote: Most of all prisoners in prison today are there for non-violent crimes.
So what? Is that the best you can do, is to now shift the focus to non-violent crimes?

The following is just for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (remember that number) in three border states (CA, TX, and AZ).
Arrest Offenses: Illegal aliens in our study population were arrested for 691,890 offenses, averaging 13 offenses per illegal
alien:

  • Number of illegal aliens in our study population: 55,322
  • Total number of arrests: 459,614
  • Total number of criminal offenses: 691,890
  • Average number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 13
  • Median number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 10
  • Interesting, eh? Is that merely anecdotal?

    Criminal offense: Homicide;
    Total offenses: Number: 5,992;
    Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 1,156;

    Marysdude wrote: Petty criminals who repeat until they must serve longer and longer sentences (some do it deliberately).
    More lame excuses, backed up by nothing; no evidence whatsoever.

    Why do you make excuses for criminal illegal aliens?

    Marysdude wrote: An illegal immigrant is no more likely to kill a policeman than anyone else.
    You don’t know that. And besides, one is one too many, because it is a crime that should have never occurred.

    But I’m sure the survivors and victims of crimes by illegal aliens are impressed by your endless excuses and defense of criminal illegal aliens.

    Marysdude wrote: But your diatribes are way off base in any case.
    Then why bother to read them and then spend time responding to them?

    If it’s so way off, then why worry?
    Where’s your proof to back up any of your so-called facts and conclusions.
    You’ve provided nothing to back up any of you’ve written; only your opinion, for what that is worth.

    Marysdude wrote: Unless you are willing to kill all those who enter our country illegally, …
    And some people have the gall to accuse others of hyperbole?

    Who (besides you) ever said we should “kill all those who enter our country illegally”? ! ?
    That’s really quite an asinine statement.
    So, anyone who disagrees with you must be someone who wants to “kill all those who enter our country illegally”? ! ?
    So, anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist zenophobe?
    Do you really think such statements is making anything you write more credible?

    Marysdude wrote: Unless you are willing to kill all those who enter our country illegally, you’ll just have to influence our leadership to reform and enforce.
    Duh.

    That’s what voting and political activism is all about.

    Marysdude wrote: Yelling at those who disagree with you on who is to blame for the problem solves nothing.
    Whose yelling? Especially when it’s textual (nothing audible).

    Also, it’s funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they do themselves.

    Marysdude wrote: You maintain that the only answer is to throw the Congressional bums out and start all over.
    So, repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates makes more sense?

    That’s your right.
    And you, and other voters will reap what you sow.

    Marysdude wrote: That is hardly realistic, and it becomes even less realistic since SCOTUS granted corporate nannies the right to take over our government.
    Yet, you still repeatedly want to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates makes more sense?

    Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, eh?

    Marysdude wrote: I maintain that the best way to take care of it is to convince enough lawmakers that enforcement of laws governing the hiring of illegals may be the only solution.
    I agree that enforcing laws to punish the greedy illegal employers is probably one of the most effective ways to reduce illegal immigration.

    But both Republican and Democrat politicians want profits from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes.
    So nothing is likely to change as long as the majority of voters continue to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.

    Marysdude wrote: You and our government are pissing into the wind when you take all your venom out on the working smuck who comes here to get a job.
    That comment makes no sense, since you just said you support law enforcement to reduce employment of illegal aliens.
    Marysdude wrote: Solve the hiring problem and you will have solved the illegal immigration problem.
    You will have solved much of the problem. But not the entire problem. We need both internal enforcement of laws to prosecute the greedy illegal employers of illegal aliens, and we need to secure the borders too; because there are also illegal aliens crossing our borders that are not merely looking for a job.
    Marysdude wrote: I told you up front what my list was and where I took the information from.
    So what. It’s still worthless. Your shoddy research and poor collection and organization of facts prove nothing.
    Marysdude wrote: You are looking at some violent acts that happened close to your home, and figures you select in order to further your views.
    Nonsense.
    Marysdude wrote: Random samplings are how averages and percentages are arrived at. The figures I presented are just as accurate and worthy of consideration as those you hand out like candy.
    More nonsense.

    Your random samplings are thoroughly refuted by the GAO reports (www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf), and numerous other reports and studies.

    You can believe what ever you want, but it still won’t change the truth.

    And this is hardly what one would call merely anecdotal.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2010 12:50 AM
    Comment #305466

    So, is the following only merely anecdotal?
    Border states are some of the states hit the hardest, but as you can see below, it is happening in all states:
    []Deputy Don Willmon, Angelina County Sheriff’s Department, Texas; Murdered May 13, 1979
    []Officer Kenneth Collins, 33 ; Phoenix Police Department, Arizona; Murdered May 27, 1988
    []Officer Lawrence Cadena, 43 ; Dallas Police Department, Texas; Murdered December 13, 1988
    []Trooper Bret Clodfelter, 34 ; Oregon State Police, Klammath Falls; Murdered, September 30, 1992
    []Agent Richard Fass, 37 ; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Murdered June 30, 1994
    []Alexander Kirpnick, 27 ; United States Border Patrol; Murdered June 3, 1998
    []Officer Marc Atkinson, 28 ; Phoenix Police Department, Arizona; Murdered March 28, 1999
    []Detective Hugo Arango, 24 ; Doroville Police Department, Georgia; Murdered May 13, 2000
    []Officer Michael Dunman ; Salt Lake City Police Department, Utah; Killed July 17, 2000
    []Deputy Michael Schapp ; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, California ; Shot and injured September 25, 2000
    []Deputy Sheriff David March, 33 ; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, California; Murdered April 29, 2002
    []Ranger Kriss Eggle, 28 ; National Park Service ; Murdered, August 9, 2002
    []Officer Enrique Hernandez, 27 ; Las Vegas Police Department, Nevada; Shot and critically injured on December 12, 2002
    []Officer Robert Sitek ; Phoenix Police Department, Arizona ; Shot and critically injured, April 12, 2003
    []Officer Tony Zeppetella, 27 ; Oceanside Police Department, California ; Murdered June 13, 2003
    []Officer Matthew Pavelka, 26 ; Burbank Police Department, California ; Murdered November 15, 2003
    []Agent James Paul Epling, 24 ; U. S. Border Patrol ; Drowned during pursuit of suspected illegal aliens, December 16, 2003
    []Bisbee Arizona Police Department, Arizona ; February 17, 2004
    []Officer Robert Bryant ; Denver Police Department ; Intentionally struck with vehicle, January 22, 2004
    []Officer Derek Whipps ; Boise Police Department, Idaho ; Shot and critically injured, February 28, 2004
    []Deputies Daniel Dail and Victor Locklin; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Shot at with an AK-47 on April 9, 2004
    []Officer William “Will” Seuis ; Oakland Police Department ; Hit and killed on July 24, 2004
    []Deputy Brandon “Brandy” Winfield ; Marion County Sheriff’s Department; Shot and Killed on October 17, 2004
    []November 2008—Manuel Antonio Barahona, an illegal alien from El Salvador and a member of MS-13 gang, pled guilty to a knifing murder during a robbery in June. He was arrested for an unrelated drug offense also in June. (The Gazette, December 3, 2008).
    []October 2008—Ignacio Gomez-Gutierrez, an illegal alien, pled guilty to felony murder for the DUI death of a mother and her pregnant daughter. He was arrested after fleeing the scene of the accident. In 2005, when Gomez was arrested for running a stop sign and failed a breathalyzer test, he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense and was jailed for one year. He also served time for two previous DWI convictions but apparently was never deported. (Houston Chronicle, October 21, 2008).
    []October 2008—Eleazar Perez-Delgado, an illegal alien, was sentenced to five years in prison for a hit-and-run accident that killed a pedestrian in Tulsa in September, 2007. (Associated Press, October 8, 2008).
    []September 2008—Alejandro Aleman, an illegal alien from Mexico, was sentenced to six to 23 months in prison in Pennsylvania for hit and run driving that injured a woman. He apparently fled to Mexico following the accident and was apprehended reentering the United States illegally. He pled guilty to the charges and will be deported upon his release. (Daily Record/Sunday News, September 29, 2008).
    []September 2008—Alejandro Rivera Gamboa, an illegal alien, pled guilt to murder and aggravated abuse of a corpse for the murder of a 15-year-old girl by stepping on her throat until she stopped breathing. Months earlier Rivera had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and admitted he was in the country illegally. (KGW News, Portland, Oregon, September 17, 2008).
    []September 2008—Roberto Hernandez-Hernandez, an illegal alien from Mexico, pled guilt to raping a woman who was asleep in Bellingham, WA. (Bellingham Herald, September 16, 2008).
    []September 2008—Martin Cana-Chocoj, an illegal alien, pled guilt to rape in Fairview, NJ. (The Record, September 16, 2008).
    []September 2008—Victor Navarro, arrested in April for a crime committed in 2002 was convicted of rape and sodomy and sentenced to eight years in prison after which he will be deported to Mexico. (North County Times, Escondido, CA, September 4, 2008).
    []August 2008—Salomon Renterio Valdez, an illegal national of Mexico, was sentenced to four years in federal prison for unlawful re-entry of aggravated felon in Montrose, Colorado in August. Renterio-Valdez had been deported previously in 1996 for convictions of alien smuggling, molesting children, robbery, and drug trafficking. (ICE, August 25, 2008)
    []August 2008—Luciano Tellez, an illegal immigrant, was sentenced to 32-40 years in prison for felony homicide in Smithfield, North Carolina. In March, Tellez, while driving under influence, ran a stop sign killing a father and son. He fled the scene of the accident. At the time of his arrest, Tellez was wanted for violation of his parole on a drunken drive conviction in 2005 and he has a suspended license. After serving his sentence, Tellez will be deported (WRAL, August 22, 2008).
    []August 2008—Victor Manuel Perez-Monroy, an illegal resident from Mexico, was sentenced to five years in federal prison for unlawful re-entry after a prior deportation. Perez-Monroy has an extensive criminal history in Arizona, including three convictions for burglary. (ICE, August 08, 2008)
    []July 2008—In Harrisonburg, Virginia, Jose Gutierrez-Ramirez, an illegal alien, pled guilty to two felony charges: aggravated ID fraud and identity fraud conspiracy. He faces up to seven years in prison and a fine of $250,000. (The Daily News Record, July 30, 2008)
    []July 2008—Juan Carlos Benevidas-Yanes, a Salvadoran illegal alien, pled guilty to aggravated assault and faced a sentence of up to eight years in prison. An attempted homicide charge was dropped. (The Morning Call, July 14, 2008)
    []July 2008—Raul Jesus Mendoza, and illegal alien, was charged with the rape of a 12-year old girl. He had previously been convicted of rape as a minor. (List of Colorado victims of illegal alien crime)
    []June 2008—Ivan Eduardo Rodriguez Hernandez, a Mexican illegal alien was convicted in Denver of sexual assault and sentenced to 10 years probation. He previously was arrested for vehicle theft, and disorderly conduct. (Denver News Channel 7, September 18, 2008)
    []June 2008—Richard Diaz-Garcia, an illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, was sentenced to nine months in prison in Wilmington, Deleware for shoplifting and afterwards will be turned over to immigration authorities. This will be the fifth time that Diaz has been deported. In 1999, he was convicted of drug related charges in the state and was deported. He was sent back again in 2002, 2004, and 2006. (Delaware Online, June 30, 2008)
    []June 2008—Miguel Montez-Flores, a Mexican national residing in Silver Spring, Maryland, was sentenced to seven years of prison for illegal reentering the country after being deported. In 1997, Montez was twice convicted of drug charges and deported. Since then, he has illegally reentered the United States and convicted three times of DUI and various other motor vehicle and assault charges using an alias. Flores will be deported after serving his seven years. (Baltimore Examiner, June 27, 2008)
    []June 2008—Martin Santos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, pled guilty to rape of twelve year old in Washington County Criminal Court in Tennessee. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison and faces deportation afterwards. (Tri-City News, June 26, 2008)
    []June 2008—Gustavo Granados, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, pled guilty in Rhode Island to illegally reentering the United States after being deported in March. In 1992, Granados was convicted of second-degree child abuse in Rhode Island and twice deported. Granados was sentenced to forty-six months in prison and will be deported following the sentence. (Providence, Rhode Island, June 21, 2008)
    []May 2008—Jose Lachira Carranza, an illegal immigrant from Peru, was sentenced to eight years in prison for assaulting two men during a bar fight in West Orange 2006. This is not Carranaza’s first foray into crime. Currently, he is indicted on charges of sexual assault on a minor, as well as a prime suspect in the triple slayings in Newark. (New York Times, May 13, 2008)
    []May 2008—Ignacio Merendon-Zerega,an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for felony homicide in Oregon. In December, Merendon, while driving under the influence, crashed his car, killing one person. According to court records, Merendon had six previous drunk driving convictions, a hit and run conviction, repeated license suspensions and revocations, and a previous deportation to Mexico. ( News-Register, May 06, 2008).
    []April 2008—Francisco Ruben Morales Ramos, an illegal Mexican national, pled guilty to second degree murder and armed criminal action in St. Joseph, Missouri. Last February, Ramos stabbed his roommate with a kitchen knife in their apartment. Ramos was sentenced to life plus twenty years. (St. Joseph News Press, April 30, 2008)
    []April 2008—Anunciacion Santos Turcios, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, pled guilty to second degree murder in Newport News, Virginia. After an altercation with his roommate, he killed him with a pick ax. He faces charges up to forty years for the crime. (Newport News, April 07, 2008)
    []April 2008—Miguel Paz-Calderon, a nineteen year old illegal immigrant, pled guilty to hit and run in San Rafael, California. In February, Paz backed his van from a garage into a passerby, pinning her between his bumper and a pillar. He fled the scene but was detained by residents until police could arrive. He was sentenced to six months in jail and could face deportation. (Martin Independent Journal, April 02, 2008).
    []March 2008—Eddie Carbajal-Lile, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, pled guilty to felony homicide in Lima, Wisconsin. Last summer while driving under the influence, Carbajal-Lile struck a car with three teenage passengers, killing one person. After the wreck, he fled the scene and was apprehended two weeks late in Ohio. Prosecutors have recommended a sentence of ten years (Sheybogan Press, March 25, 2008)
    []March 2008—In Redding Pennsylvania, Jose Salvador Alcantar-Ruiz, twice deported illegal alien from Mexico, pled guilty to false impersonation, vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, and obstructing an officer. In March, Alcantar-Ruiz unintentionally ran over a three year old child. When questioned, he gave police offers someone elses drivers license. He was sentenced to sixteen months in prison and will face deportation. (The Associated Press, March 21, 2008)
    []March 2008—Diego Pillico, illegal immigrant from Ecuador, pled guilty to first degree manslaughter in New York City. Caught trying to steal money from a client’s purse, Pillico murdered her and attempted to disguise it as a suicide. In exchange for his plea, Pillico was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison (WCAX TV, March 13, 2008).
    []February 2008—Richard Toledo, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, pled guilty to two counts of murder and one count of kidnapping in Stafford, New Jersey. On January of 2006, Toledo murdered two young brothers and kidnapped their mother by knifepoint. He faces up to thirty years and life in prison for the murders, and an additional thirty years for the kidnapping. (Asbury and Park Press, February 9, 2008).
    []February 2008—Howard County Circuit Judge Lenore R. Gelfman rejected Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano’s plea agreement. While driving under the influence, Morales-Soriano, an illegal alien form Mexico, crashed into a car resulting in resulting in the deaths of a marine corporal and his date on Thanksgiving. In September, he pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter in exchange for an eight year sentence offered by prosecutors. If he goes to trial and is convicted all offenses, he could face up to twenty years in prison (Baltimore Sun, February 4, 2008)
    []February 2008—Noe Garcia Moncada, an illegal alien, pled guilty to striking and fleeing the site of an accident in North Bend, Oregon. In October, Moncadaa struck and killed a Springfield couple as they walked to their hotel. After the crash, he hid his truck and attempted to flee to his native Mexico. The judge sentenced him to six years in prison, the maximum, for his crime. (The World, February 2, 2008)
    []January 2008—Selvin Hernandez-Flores, previously deported illegal immigrant from Honduras, pled guilty to public intoxication and possession of marijuana in Cedar Springs, Iowa. The judge sentenced to fifteen months in federal prison. Hernandez-Flores had been arrested thirty five times, but thwarted law enforcement officials with his use of at least eighteen names and birth dates. (WCF Courier, January 24th, 2008)
    []January 2008—Federico Balbuena, Mexican illegal immigrant, pled guilty to luring teenage girl to his home in Easton, Pennsylvania. He was sentenced to serve 7-14months, and federal authorities placed a detainment on his record meaning he will likely be deported after the sentence. (The Morning Call, January 19th, 2008)
    []January 2008—Milton Estrada, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, pled guilty to inappropriately touching the sixteen year old daughters of his ex-girlfriend in Long Beach, New Jersey. He was sentenced to five years in prison, and federal authorities placed a detainment on his record, meaning he will likely be deported after his sentence. (APP, January 18, 2008)
    []January 2008—Juan Us Ralios (also known as Minguel A. Marcano), an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, pled guilty to driving under the influence, no driver’s license, and falsification and obstruction of official business in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. Us Ralios was involved in a traffic accident in June that left a Dover man dead, and prior to that crashed into a tree while driving under the influence, where he used the other name (Times Reporter, January 4th)
    []December 2007—Jonathan Naravez-Pena., an illegal immigrant, pled guilty to the charge vehicular manslaughter in Nashville, Tennessee. In October, while driving under the influence, Pena crashed into a car killing a young man and his son. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors recommend a prison time of sixteen years (News Channel 5, December 18, 2007).
    []December 2007—Rafael Avelino Gines, an illegal immigrant, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison for a felony hit and run occurring on November 28th. After serving his sentence he faces deportation charges. (KATU, December 17, 2007)
    []December 2007—Jose Santa Portillo-Chicas, a Salvadorian illegal immigrant, pled guilty to capital murder in Stafford, Virginia. In exchange for his plea, Portillo-Chicas, a MS-13 gang member, was sentenced to life in prison (Media General News Service, December 13, 2007)
    []December 2007—Rodolfo Ramirez, a Latin American illegal immigrant, confessed to a hit and run in Laurel Maryland occurring on November 25th. Ramirez, who had been living illegally for the past nine years, faces charges of manslaughter and lying to the police. (NBC-4, December 13, 2007)
    []December 2007—Andres Hernandez Cabrera, an illegal immigrant, pled guilty to custodial interference and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty nine days. Cabrera was accused of kidnapping a baby and injuring two people in a crash on November 28th in Chattanooga Tennessee. Immigration Customs and Enforcement placed him on detainment, meaning he will likely be deported after the sentence. (News Channel 9, Chattanooga, Tenn., December 5, 2007)

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2010 12:53 AM
    Comment #305476

    Is the following merely anecdotal too?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2010 9:04 AM
    Comment #305481

    >Marysdude wrote: But your diatribes are way off base in any case.
    Then why bother to read them and then spend time responding to them?

    d.a.n.

    You have a point. Since you cherry pick figures out of information you have gathered…to fit your own agenda. And since you feel dirtied when you read information I gathered, it only makes sense for me to drop your crap like a hot potato.

    Posted by: Marysdude at August 9, 2010 1:16 PM
    Comment #305482

    Dan-
    Anecdotes in a herd do not a trend make. They actually looked at crime statistics in Arizona, and found that despite the hyperbole on the part of the Right Wing there, there was actually a drop in both violent and property-oriented crimes.

    There are reasons to resolve this problem. That illegal immigrants are rioting and driving up crime rates is not one that the facts will support.

    My observation of politics has been that it’s ridiculously easy to form and opinion and take a stand, and even more ridiculously easy to get smug and self righteous about it.

    As far as I’m concerned your repetition shows a lack of respect for the reader’s intelligence, and for the discussion in general. You don’t care what your readers think, or whether they find the data to be easy to digest. You feel they’re obligated to go over all your wonderful facts. They’re not.

    Have you ever noticed the way I break up my comments with paragraphs, how I tend towards a conversational, rather than didactic tone? Folks have their choice as to whether they read, much less buy what I have to say. I don’t assume that people have to read my stuff, merely because I might think it would be good for them to.

    Also, in my experience of messages in the media, a message repeated far too often ultimately makes itself ineffective. Maybe your work was fairly thorough the first time you did this, but now, having posted the same phrases again and again, posted the same information again and again, its become something that people who were paying attention have already internalized, or those who were not long ago learned to skip.

    Either way, it’s not even really necessary to repeat yourself like that. It’s counterproductive, in fact. New information you provide is stuck in the middle of all that old stuff, and it just gets skimmed with the rest.

    Now, I can understand being thorough, and reemphasizing important facts. But you’re really not going to get your point across just flooding the forum with text, much less get people to agree. If you have a purpose, you need to work towards it. Go look at David Remer’s writing and comments. He pretty much says many of the same things as you, but says it in less space, and greater efficiency. Look at jlw and others.

    I can understand the impulse to be complete, thorough, and insistent on what you believe. That said, I also understand that I must draw people in to read of their own free will, maintain their attention, and promote their understanding of my point. Imperfect as I am at that, sometimes, I am understanding of the reasons behind such conventions and expectations.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2010 1:28 PM
    Comment #305500
    Marysdude wrote: d.a.n. You have a point. Since you cherry pick figures out of information you have gathered…to fit your own agenda. And since you feel dirtied when you read information I gathered, it only makes sense for me to drop your crap like a hot potato.
    Suit yourself.

    I’m crushed.

    Oh well. It’s common of quiters, when they realize that their arguments are weak and failing.
    If you don’t like the data and facts, call the GAO, since it’s their research.
    Or, believe whatever you want to believe.
    But feel free anytime to disprove or discredit the GAO reports.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n - Anecdotes in a herd do not a trend make.
    You wish it wasn’t a trend.

    If you don’t like the data, call the GAO, since it’s their research.
    The fact is, what pains some people is the truth.
    Otherwise, why bother, eh?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: They actually looked at crime statistics in Arizona, and found that despite the hyperbole on the part of the Right Wing there, there was actually a drop in both violent and property-oriented crimes.
    One would hope so, with more troops and police officers trying to reduce the rampant crime.

    Just because crime decreased slightly doesn’t diminish the fact that crime by illegal aliens is a serious problem in many states, as evidenced by the GAO which reported that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: There are reasons to resolve this problem.
    With another shamnesty, like the 1986 shamnesty that more than quintupled the problem?

    Not likely, because Republican and Democrat politicians want profits from cheap labor, and Democrat politicians want votes.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That illegal immigrants are rioting and driving up crime rates is not one that the facts will support.
    Nonsense.

    Thousands of Americans murdered annually, and many tens of thousands of other victims of crime by illegal aliens most certainly is a problem, whether you can see it or not.
    The facts are easy to prove, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: My observation of politics has been that it’s ridiculously easy to form and opinion and take a stand, and even more ridiculously easy to get smug and self righteous about it.
    Really? HHMMMmmmmmmm … Guess you would know a lot about smugness and self righeousness, eh? After all, practice makes perfect, doesn’t it? It’s always so funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are masters of.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: As far as I’m concerned your repetition shows a lack of respect for the reader’s intelligence, and for the discussion in general.
    Nonsense. It depends on who the readers are. If the readers are like many incumbent politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, and choose to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, then I don’t care what they think.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You don’t care what your readers think, or whether they find the data to be easy to digest.
    More nonsense. Again, it depends on who the readers are. If they reader is of a particular ilk that wants to twist the truth, rationalize and trivialize the thousands of American citizens murdere annually by illegal aliens, then I don’t care what they think.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You feel they’re obligated to go over all your wonderful facts. They’re not.
    More nonsense. I don’t expect any readers to read any of it, who are of the particular ilk that want to twist the truth, rationalize and trivialize the thousands of American citizens murdere annually by illegal aliens, then I don’t care what they think.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Have you ever noticed the way I break up my comments with paragraphs, how I tend towards a conversational, rather than didactic tone? Folks have their choice as to whether they read, much less buy what I have to say. I don’t assume that people have to read my stuff, merely because I might think it would be good for them to.
    OHHHHHhhhhhhhh … that’s right.

    Of course! Also …

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Also, in my experience of messages in the media, a message repeated far too often ultimately makes itself ineffective.
    Well, get used to it.

    If you don’t like the facts, that’s your own problem.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Maybe your work was fairly thorough the first time you did this, but now, having posted the same phrases again and again, posted the same information again and again, its become something that people who were paying attention have already internalized, or those who were not long ago learned to skip.
    You don’t know that, and it certainly got your attention, eh?

    You don’t like it do you?
    Perhaps, because the truth hurts, eh?
    Feel free anytime to try to disprove the GAO reports (which are most likely conservative, and understate the real seriousness of the situation).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Either way, it’s not even really necessary to repeat yourself like that. It’s counterproductive, in fact.
    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, for what ever it is worth.

    As I suggested with Marysdude, if you don’t like it, then why repeatedly read and respond to it.
    I suspect it is because you find the facts disturbing, and contrary to what you’d prefer people to believe.
    Again, if you don’t like the data, then talk to the GAO, since it’s their data.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: New information you provide is stuck in the middle of all that old stuff, and it just gets skimmed with the rest.
    Really. But you noticed it. Good work.

    If you saw it, them perhaps someone else did.
    Also, the volume alone is revealing, and that is only a miniscule sample of the many thousands of homicides and other crimes committed by illegal aliens, annually.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now, I can understand being thorough, and reemphasizing important facts.
    Absolutely. After all, no one else’s articles and comments surpasses your articles with regard to prolific, circular gobbledygook.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: But you’re really not going to get your point across just flooding the forum with text, much less get people to agree.
    You don’t know that. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean others don’t.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you have a purpose, you need to work towards it.
    Don’t worry. The message will get around, when ignoring it too long finally becomes too painful.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can understand the impulse to be complete, thorough, and insistent on what you believe. That said, I also understand that I must draw people in to read of their own free will, maintain their attention, and promote their understanding of my point. Imperfect as I am at that, sometimes, I am understanding of the reasons behind such conventions and expectations.
    Right. That is all very convincing. Especially when considering these numerous statements by you which are all very “understanding” of other opinions, styles, etc., eh? And especially of the kind that of comments referring to Republicans, and anything not-DEMOCRAT, eh?

    Not!

    Your numerous comments are very inconsistent, and your articles are all about fueling and wallowing in the partisan warfare.
    What’s so credible about that?
    How about thinking about that, before you start preaching style and content to others?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2010 9:12 PM
    Comment #305532

    Dan-
    Feel free to discredit AZ crime statistics. They’re the ones saying that crime has gone down, in the face of all the rhetoric to the opposite.

    Also, I recalled pointing out something to you:

    Several things should be noted regarding our analysis. First, an arrest does not necessarily result in a prosecution or a conviction. Second, our analysis is limited to the aliens that ICE determined to have entered the United States illegally. Third, since all arrests for an individual may not be recorded in IAFIS, our data represent the minimum number of arrests for these illegal aliens. Last, our analysis is not designed to infer conclusions about the arrest history of other illegal aliens not in our study population who entered the country illegally and have been arrested.

    68% of the folks in the study population were convicted of immigration violations. Think about that. Murder and other such crimes make up miniscule portions

    So, the authors of the report themselves say not to infer anything about the prevalence of immigrant crime from the arrests, and even if they did, most of these guys are getting convicted on Immigration or drug charges.

    Additionally, we’re dealing with arrests and convictions over period of 57 years. The statistics are worthless as an indication of short term crime rates among illegal immigrants. It’s like taking a telephoto shot with the focus off.

    Disciplined interpretation of the facts is what separates ideological partisanship from the practical policymaking. We often think certain things are true or important. However, we don’t always know before hand what the real issues or real truths are.

    As for trends? I don’t have to wish for a trend which is already there. Crime is down in Arizona, despite claims that there’s an invasion going on. That’s your trend, right there.

    Nonsense. It depends on who the readers are. If the readers are like many incumbent politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, and choose to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, then I don’t care what they think.

    Nonsense?

    Look, the title of the old book is “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” not, “How to alienate folks, call them partisan monsters, and then expect to influence people.”

    I would argue that if one has to convey complex information, one can take a little more time, and explain things in layman’s terms. However, you do have to realize that people have limits to the time people are willing to spend reading you, and the cludginess of the information they’re willing to wade through.

    You can’t force people to pay attention, to notice things. I was trying to cue you into the fact that people don’t always notice that something is different, when it’s lost in a blizzard of the familiar. You shouldn’t use me as a contrary case to that assertion- I’ve got Asperger’s syndrome, so it’s in my nature to pick up things in the noise that other people skip over.

    You shouldn’t put the burden of figuring out what you mean squarely on the shoulders of the reader. That’s ineffective communication. You should already know what you’re trying to argue for, and cut away all that does not matter to that.

    The alternative is that people will skip over much of what you write. Don’t force people to pan for your gold. Extract it, and sell them jewelry.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2010 3:54 PM
    Comment #305539

    SD

    You were out at the grinding wheel above. You keep on using the same old argument about immigration being a federal issue alone. So is bank robery. Local police investigate and apprehend bank robbers quite regularly. So scales of justice are out of whack. So are states setting some of that “policy” you so love to talk about in dealing with bank robbers? I know my IQ is just short of MENSA material, but logic and common sense does not fit with your argument about “policy” and federal responsibility with the law.

    Oh, wait. I forgot. Politically, liberal means expanding, widening, broad based. You guys know better than I. You broaden thing out when it fits the agenda, but if it doesn’t fit the agenda, just kinda keep it in the ballpark.

    Thanks d.a.n. for the position you presented.

    Posted by: tom humes at August 10, 2010 5:43 PM
    Comment #305552
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n - Feel free to discredit AZ crime statistics. They’re the ones saying that crime has gone down, in the face of all the rhetoric to the opposite.
    Wrong again, since I never disputed that crime rates may be falling in Arizona for 2008-to-2009.

    And as I wrote above, which you conveniently over-looked …

    d.a.n wrote: One would hope so [i.e. crime rates falling], with more troops and police officers trying to reduce the rampant crime.
    Just because crime decreased slightly doesn’t diminish the fact that crime by illegal aliens is a serious problem in many states, as evidenced by the GAO which reported that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

    Therefore, your barkin’ up the wrong tree, and you are quite simply wrong in trying to portray me as discrediting AZ crime statistics, since I never did so.
    Don’t you ever get tired of repeatedly being proven wrong?
    Personally, I’d be embarrassed and ashamed to stoop to such tactics, nebulous obfuscation, and other circular gobbledygook, merely to try to salvage a weak and failing (if not totally absurd) argument.

    However, the crime rate statistics for Arizona for year 2010 are not yet available.
    And Arizona is only one of 4 southern border states, with the smallest border.
    But with the attention that all of the border violence and crime is getting, one would certainly hope that some progress is being made to reduce the high crime rates by illegal aliens in all border states, and other states with large numbers of illegal aliens.

    By the way, you are also conveniently forgetting that illegally tresspassing U.S. borders is a crime in itself, and if you include that crime (especially for the illegal aliens that have tresspassed our borders numerous times), who knows what the real crime rates are?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Also, I recalled pointing out something to you: Several things should be noted regarding our analysis. First, an arrest does not necessarily result in a prosecution or a conviction. Second, our analysis is limited to the aliens that ICE determined to have entered the United States illegally. Third, since all arrests for an individual may not be recorded in IAFIS, our data represent the minimum number of arrests for these illegal aliens. Last, our analysis is not designed to infer conclusions about the arrest history of other illegal aliens not in our study population who entered the country illegally and have been arrested. 68% of the folks in the study population were convicted of immigration violations. Think about that. Murder and other such crimes make up miniscule portions.
    More twisted obfuscation and nonsense.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Murder and other such crimes make up miniscule portions
    Several thousands American citizens murdered annually by illegal aliens, and several tens of thousands of victims of crime by illegal aliens is “miniscule”?

    I’m sure these victims and their survivors would strongly disagree with such a callous and thoughtless statement.
    More victims of crime by illegal aliens …
    More victims of crime by illegal aliens …

    Again, only because crime decreased slightly in Artizona does not diminish the fact that crime by illegal aliens is still high, a very serious problem in many states, as evidenced by the GAO which reported that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

    So, your arguments have no merit (as usual).

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Look, the title of the old book is “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” not, “How to alienate folks, call them partisan monsters, and then expect to influence people.”
    The problem is that the truth hurts.

    I don’t give a damn about influencing and persuading idiots, who can’t see the truth.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I would argue that if one has to convey complex information, one can take a little more time, and explain things in layman’s terms. However, you do have to realize that people have limits to the time people are willing to spend reading you, and the cludginess of the information they’re willing to wade through.
    Interesting, since you seem to have plenty of time to read and respond to my comments.

    And that’s is most likely because the truth hurts.
    If it didn’t, they probably would not bother to respond at all.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can’t force people to pay attention, to notice things.
    Really? Again, that’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I was trying to cue you into the fact that people don’t always notice that something is different, when it’s lost in a blizzard of the familiar.
    You don’t know that. After all, look at you, returning repeatedly, over and over, to read, quote, and respond.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You shouldn’t put the burden of figuring out what you mean squarely on the shoulders of the reader.
    Why don’t you save your advice and practice what you preach?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s ineffective communication.
    And so is obfuscation and blind, circular gobbledygook and blindly fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan warfare.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You should already know what you’re trying to argue for, and cut away all that does not matter to that.
    Gee. Funny how some people do the very thing that they accuse others of.

    So, how is prolific, blind, circular gobbledygook “cut[ting] away all that does not matter” ?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The alternative is that people will skip over much of what you write.
    That’s their choice, and I don’t really care much.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Don’t force people to pan for your gold. Extract it, and sell them jewelry.
    And a good helping of gobbledygook, eh?
    Tom Humes wrote: SD , You were out at the grinding wheel above. You keep on using the same old argument … … Thanks d.a.n. for the position you presented.
    Thanks Tom. You’re so right when you wrote:
    … but logic and common sense does not fit with your [Stephen Daugherty’s] argument about “policy” and federal responsibility with the law.
    It actually borders on absurd. The one that is really not only whacky, but callous and despicable is Stephen Daugherty’s following comment, despite thousands of American citizens murdered annually by illegal aliens, and tens of thousands of other victims of crimes by illegal aliens:
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Murder and other such crimes [by illegal aliens] make up miniscule portions.
    How revealing is that?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 10, 2010 10:05 PM
    Comment #305579

    Stephen,

    Some things are just better left up the the feds, even if their attempts at solution are short of perfect. Immigration regulation and enforcement is one of them, conducting war is another.

    I tend to think about it this way…if we are doing badly in Afghanistan, would it help or hurt for the Georgia National Guard and the Illinois Air Reserve, show up over there and begin taking on the Taliban?

    If the federal government needs help with immigration enforcement, it can seek assistance from local officials and or state governments. Separate laws and cross enforcements can only do more harm to an already messy situation.

    Timothy McVeigh is a citizen, and many of those who dropped the twin towers were legally in America, as was the fellow who shot up Ft Hood, the Texas Tower shooter, the Virginia shooters, the guy who flew into the IRS building, etc. Just committing a crime after committing the crime of illegal immigration does not change the dynamic of anything except in the minds of the already demented.

    Posted by: Marysdude at August 11, 2010 10:25 AM
    Comment #305642
    Marysdude wrote: Just committing a crime after committing the crime of illegal immigration does not change the dynamic of anything except in the minds of the already demented.
    Well, well. Looky there. Back already, eh?

    There’s one major detail you conveniently overlook.
    The crimes by illegal aliens should have never occurred, since the illegal aliens are not supposed to be here in the first place. Duh!

    So, whose demented?

    What’s not only demented, but despicable, is making excuses for criminal illegal aliens, trivializing the tens of thousands (annually) of U.S. victims of crime by illegal aliens.
    The only thing more despicable are the FOR-SALE, incomptent, arrogant, greedy, corrupt incumbent politicians who pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor, and votes.

    The problem is not only a few illegal aliens, but tens of millions, not to mention the many thousands of Americans who are murdered annually, and many tens of thousands who are victims of other crimes by illegal aliens (annually).

    How anyone can trivialize and rationalize tens of thousands of victims of crime annually, by illegal aliens, is amazing and revealing.

    And the extremely lame argument that illegal aliens commit less crime is not only not at all convincing, but meaningless.
    Such lame excuses do not diminish the fact that those are crimes that should have never occurred.
    Also, since no one closely tracks and researches the crime by illegal aliens, the crime rates are probably much worse than what is reported; especially when 27%-to-29% of all persons incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens (source: source: www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf).
    So, that has got to be one of the most pathetic, non-sensical, ridiculous excuses there is (among all of the other worthless excuses).

    And if the the crime isn’t enough of a reason, then consider the billion$ of annual NET losses due to illegal aliens:

    • burden on education systems;

    • burden on healthcare systems;

    • burden on hospital systems;

    • burden on welfare systems;

    • burden on Social Security system;

    • burden on Medicaid system;

    • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

    • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

    • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

    • burden on prison systems; 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens;

    • voter fraud; burden on voting systems; an estimated 2%-to-3% of all votes are by illegal aliens;

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2010 9:49 PM
    Comment #305643

    By the way, the states and federal government can and should work together to enforce immigration laws.

    There’s no reason whatsoever why that can’t work.

    BOTH the states and federal government ALREADY work together to enforce many laws. Such excuses are extremely weak, but don’t stop now … the pretzel imitations and the twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook are most entertaining.

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2010 9:55 PM
    Comment #305644

    Besides, the federal government won’t do their job to enforce immigration laws, so the states should have the right do what the federal government is too corrupt and/or incompetent to do.

    The federal government does not want to enforce the immigration laws, because Republican and Democrat politicians prefer to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, for profits from cheap labor and votes.

    Also, 18 of the 19 perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 (5 who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards , and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because tens of millions of illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawning widespread document and identity fraud and crime that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.

    5 of the 19 hijackers of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, and had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. And amazingly, in the months before 11-SEP-2001, 4 of those 5 terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding.
    Those 4 illegal aliens could have been arrested, “convicted”, and deported, if only the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens. And 14 of the 19 hijackers were also on the FBI’s Terror Watch List!

    More Americans were murdered in 3 years (between 2005 and 2008) than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in 5 years (between 2003-2008). Crime along the borders is rampant, and it is also pouring across our borders.

    Yet, some people don’t want the states (including border states) helping to enforce illegal tresspass of our borders?
    Why not?
    Let’s hear the reasons, because it should not be too hard at all to pick such lame and nonsensical excuses to pieces.

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 11, 2010 10:12 PM
    Comment #305647

    I hear a bee buzzing around my ear. Stephen, did I not address my comments to you? Did you open the door and let the bee in? I can tell it’s a bee because the buzz repeats faintly, over, and over, and over, the word ‘despicable’. Bzzzzz…

    Posted by: Marysdude at August 11, 2010 11:23 PM
    Comment #305666
    Marysdud wrote: I hear a bee buzzing around my ear. Stephen, did I not address my comments to you? Did you open the door and let the bee in? I can tell it’s a bee because the buzz repeats faintly, over, and over, and over, the word ‘despicable’. Bzzzzz…
    Yes, despicable.

    The truth hurts.

    And when some people can’t salvage their weak, failing (if not totally absurd and despicable) arguments, they resort to other nonsense, rather than argue their case.
    For example

    Marysdud wrote: Can someone please tell me…as a comparison, how much harm have a few million ‘anchor’ babies caused America over the past eighty or so years, compared to the harm AIG/Goldman/Lehman/BOA did in ten years.
    How pathetic is that.

    Who ever said the anchor babies were the villains?
    Criminal illegal aliens are the problem.
    How many people did AIG/Goldman/Lehman/BOA murder, compared to the thousand of Americans murdered annually by criminal illegal aliens?

    Also, anchor babies are being used to game the welfare and Medicaid systems, so that the parents can get blue passports, and use the welfare for their new U.S. born citizen.
    It’s clearly an obvious abuse, and until the constitution is changed, it’s an abuse that will continue.

    Marysdud wrote: … so the Right could argue into the future that there are STILL reasons to hold one group of citizens as a caste higher than another group of citizens…oops!
    Yes. Opppsss … as in what a ridiculous comment, since there’s an obvious abuse via anchor babies, yet some people choose to conveniently ignore those abuses. And no one is saying a change to citizenship would be retroactive. The constitution guarantees U.S. born citizenship, and that’s the law, and the way it is, until 3/4 of the states ratify a change to the constitution. Also, it ain’t likely to ever happen since few Republican or Democrat politicians are serious about illegal immigration or changing the constitution.
    Marysdud wrote:I’m pretty sure the GOP thinks we live in India (pre independence). Republicans are a bullying bunch, but kicking sand in baby’s faces???
    Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they do themselves. Whose the real bully?
    Marysdud wrote: All this hooplah about immigration is a shill’s idea to divert our citizenry from the real issues facing us. These so-called ‘super-patriots’ are bringing down America faster than al Qaida ever could.
    Really?

    Also, 18 of the 19 perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 (5 who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards , and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because tens of millions of illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawning widespread document and identity fraud and crime that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.

    5 of the 19 hijackers of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, and had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. And amazingly, in the months before 11-SEP-2001, 4 of those 5 terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding.
    Those 4 illegal aliens could have been arrested, “convicted”, and deported, if only the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens. And 14 of the 19 hijackers were also on the FBI’s Terror Watch List!

    Marysdud wrote: … and job loss will occur if illegals are taken as a group from our midst, …
    Hmmmmm … that’s some strange logic.
    Marysdud wrote: d.a.n., 27% or 29% are meaningless figures [from GAO report D05337R].
    Really? Tell it to the Federal Government Accounting Office (GAO), who produced the report.
    Marysdud wrote: The figures I presented are just as accurate and worthy of consideration as those you hand out like candy.
    Does the truth pain you? Again, tell it to the Federal Government Accounting Office (GAO), who produced the report.
    Marysdud wrote: You are looking at some violent acts that happened close to your home, and figures you select in order to further your views
    False. How are these crimes are not all close to home: www.VOIAC.org ?
    Marysdud wrote:An illegal immigrant is no more likely to kill a policeman than anyone else.
    That’s not a proven fact, since no one accurately tracks that information, but never mind that those are crimes that should have never occurred, since the illegal aliens are not supposed to be here in the first place. That means that the thousands of American citizens murdered annually by illegal aliens are crimes that should have never occurred, had the federal government been doing their job, instead of trying to stop the states from doing the job that the federal government refuses to do.
    Marysdud wrote: Unless you are willing to kill all those who enter our country illegally, …
    HHMMMmmmmmmmmmmm … yet, Marysdude accuses others of hyperbole? Go figure.
    Marysdud wrote: Yelling at those who disagree with you on who is to blame for the problem solves nothing.
    Whose yelling?
    Marysdud wrote: You and our government are pissing into the wind when you take all your venom out on the working smuck who comes here to get a job.
    How many times have I said that the illegal aliens merely only looking for work are not the villains, but that the true villains are the incumbent politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor, and votes?

    That does not excuse illegal aliens trying to game our welfare, Medicaid, and school systems via anchor babies.
    That does not excuse the criminal illegal aliens who murder and maime tens of thousands of Americans annually.

    Marysdud wrote: wrote: But your diatribes are way off base in any case.
    Marysdud wrote: … it only makes sense for me to drop your crap like a hot potato…
    Then why bother to return repeatedly to read and respond?

    Perhaps it’s because the truth is disturbing?

    Marysdud wrote: Just committing a crime after committing the crime of illegal immigration does not change the dynamic of anything except in the minds of the already demented.
    ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

    So, committing a crime after committing a crime is not a crime?
    So, whose demented?

    Facts and evidence are what really pains some people who want to portray those who disagree as “yelling”.
    Your numerous statements are revealing.
    Perhaps that is what is so disturbing?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 12, 2010 9:33 AM
    Comment #305699

    Bzzz…

    Posted by: Marysdude at August 12, 2010 5:52 PM
    Comment #305720

    HMMmmmmm … Are those your initials (for Babbling Zealotous Zero Zit)?

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 12, 2010 9:22 PM
    Comment #305758

    tom humes-

    You were out at the grinding wheel above.

    Sorry, I like to keep myself sharp.

    You keep on using the same old argument about immigration being a federal issue alone.

    Yes, I do. And since the facts and the constitution back my argument, there’s no reason to quit using it. Although, in the interests of brevity, I might want to refer to it in brief in the future. No need to knock people over the head with the same info over and over again.

    So is bank robery. Local police investigate and apprehend bank robbers quite regularly. So scales of justice are out of whack.

    Your argument is as follows: Some federal laws can and are enforced by both federal, state, and local officials. Therefore, State and Local officials can write laws about any matter the federal government’s power cover.

    Well, here’s the thing: States have the right write up laws concerning the traditional offenses of Murder, Assault, Theft, Burglary, Robbery, etc. There’s nothing in the constitution to say that they can’t. The only reason why Federal officials can step in on Bank Robberies, if they so choose to, is that Bank Robberies usually occur at institutions that the FDIC ensures. That’s what can make it a Federal Offense, and give the FBI jurisdiction.

    But I think you’ll find that States already make armed robbery a criminal offense, and the constitution says nothing that would bar them from enforcing that.

    So, Armed Robbery is already a state and local criminal offense, and the constitution allows state and local officials to make this a crime. Bank Robbery can be made Federal chiefly because the Federal Government ensures most bank deposits.

    Secondly, the process of legal immigration is undisputedly a process of the federal government. I don’t think even you would try to argue that Arizona can run its own naturalization process. It is quite clearly, and quitely unambiguously a federal responsibility.

    The judgment handed down by Judge Bolton did not block a provision making sanctuary city status illegal within Arizona’s borders. The State is permitted to set policy on whether it chooses to cooperate with federal government officials on matters of federal law, just as cities in states where such laws haven’t been passed reserve the right to declare themselves sanctuary cities.

    It also upheld provisions making stopping in traffic to hire somebody off the street illegal, but it struck down a provision that made it illegal for an illegal alien to solicit work in a public place.

    I would imagine that the judge thought that regulating traffic and commerce was one thing, but regulating the criminality of an illegal immigrant seeking work was a federal matter.

    The Arizona legislature created, essentially, new state crimes for immigration offenses. Immigration offenses are defined, inherently, by what the Federal Government establishes as a crime. If the Federal Government decided that ten bucks paid to a federal clerk and living in the country for a week would make you a citizen, then refusing to do that would become the new thing that Arizona was punishing. What business does Arizona have punishing people who are breaking a federal law? Once a person is charged with a federal crime, you don’t hand them over to a State Court for trial.

    Marysdude and Dan-
    Both of you knock it off, or I will start deleting comments.

    Dan-
    The GAO report dealt with a select part of the prison population, people who had been arrested over more than half a century. Most were both arrested for and convicted of Immigration and drug offenses.

    The authors of the report specifically say you can’t draw conclusions about the rest of the population from this.

    Don’t you ever get tired of repeatedly being proven wrong?

    You’d actually have to make a valid argument to provoke such fatigue.

    the question the study might legitimately raise, is what are most illegal immigrants in for?

    In the study, were you to actually derive further conclusions, the numbers on arrests and convictions show small percentages in the arrests, and even smaller percentages for convictions in terms of the offense you site as a major reason to get zealous about immigrants.

    So, when we see that 68% of the convictions are for immigration violations, it might raise the question, if we were considering that study a valid basis for derived conclusions about all prisoners, whether most illegal aliens arrested are doing anything besides being illegal aliens.

    And really, immigration crimes are specific crimes, and like other specific crimes, it can be measured. You don’t get to wander off into speculation-land by saying “who knows what other crimes might be committed by these people.”

    You have to stick with what crimes are actually committed and recorded, because that’s what can be proved, and provable information is a superior basis for rational, critical thought than speculation based on emotional appeals and demagoguery.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You should already know what you’re trying to argue for, and cut away all that does not matter to that.

    Gee. Funny how some people do the very thing that they accuse others of.

    If I am a hypocrite in this matter, the point still holds. It would remain something I should do, when I fail to do it, and you should as well.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Murder and other such crimes [by illegal aliens] make up miniscule portions.

    How revealing is that?

    Well, since I’m arguing strictly with the scope of the study you cite, and the study you cite states that one percent or fewer of the conviction were actually for murder, then all that reveals is that I have an eye for details you lack, or which you at least fail to exercise.

    You’re trying to hard to take the argument to me. In the process, you’re avoiding facing up to the fact that much of what I say is true.

    You may feel pretty damn righteous. So do I on occasion. But that’s not what’s going to make me right. Even if my conclusion is right, I could still have facts wrong, and be making inferences that are invalid. I have to watch out for those things. So do you, if you what I want when I argue: credibility, and persuasivness.

    If it’s all just about venting your political feelings, expressing yourself, please, just vent. But if you wish other people to sign on, following your logic will be important, and it will be important as well that you give them something to follow that is worth their time, and which really backs your argument.

    Some people… Well some people argue believing they are right, but they’ve decided they are right for reasons they don’t feel they have to justify to anybody else. They’re also afraid sometimes that if they tell people the truth about what they say and why, folks might not agree with them.

    People in this country have a right to express themselves, but there is no right that gives people a guarantee of being understood or agreed with.

    Being hostile and vicious to others won’t help you. It certainly hasn’t helped you with me, as I have a tendency to dig in and resist folks who try to push me around like that. When you get especially hostile, you’re putting people on their guard, increasing the likelihood that somebody you might be better off trying to reach is going to raise their defenses, and start considering your opinion in terms of a hostile opponent, rather than somebody they’ll feel less wary about joining with.

    It’s a question of what kind of thresholds you want to establish for people to agree with you. My philosophy, sometimes imperfectly adhered to, is that the less I try to beat my opinion into people, the more I base my appeals on facts and simple moral principles, the more I remove the ad hominem arguments, the better chance I have of convincing people of things, and not alienating them before I’ve had a chance to change their minds.

    With some people, though, it’s tough. Some people want to pick a fight. Some people simply aren’t going to agree. But even there, if I keep my cool, If I rely on valid, sound arguments, I at least have a better chance of convincing others, who are reading along, than I would otherwise.

    That’s my honest opinion. That’s why I try, and yes sometimes fail to live by.

    The question is, what do you live by? Do you look upon your audience as equals? Do you think of them as smart, able to examine evidence, or stupid? And really, do you have standards by which you will acknowledge when your own argument has failed, or are you simply trying to defend your opinion at all costs, for reasons noble or otherwise?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2010 12:10 PM
    Comment #305768

    >Marysdude and Dan-
    Both of you knock it off, or I will start deleting comments.

    Stephen,

    Okay.

    Posted by: Marysdude at August 13, 2010 6:21 PM
    Comment #305804
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Secondly, the process of legal immigration is undisputedly a process of the federal government. I don’t think even you would try to argue that Arizona can run its own naturalization process. It is quite clearly, and quitely unambiguously a federal responsibility.
    Nonsense.

    So what are states supposed to do when the federal government refuses to enforce the federal laws? Beg and/or ask “pretty please”?
    Why shouldn’t the states and federal government BOTH enforce the law?
    There’s no reason why the states and federal government can’t and shouldn’t do the job together.
    After all, the states and federal government ALREADY work together to enforce many laws.

    It appears very much like the real problem is that Democrats want votes, and both Democrat and Republican politicians want the profits from cheap labor.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Marysdude and d.a.n- Both of you knock it off, or I will start deleting comments.
    If you look very carefully at my comments in this thread, they only quote what others write (which is really enough), ask questions which have a question mark at the end of the question, and make generalizations about some human behavior (such as “some people”, etc.), question the logic of some arguments, etc.

    What’s wrong with that?

    Is it OK to tell people to “knock it off”, and then berate and address other people directly as follows?

  • StephenDaugherty wrote: You [d.a.n] don’t get to wander off into speculation-land by saying “who knows what other crimes might be committed by these people.”
  • StephenDaugherty wrote: I have an eye for details you lack, or which you at least fail to exercise.
  • StephenDaugherty wrote: You’re trying to hard to take the argument to me.
  • StephenDaugherty wrote: You may feel pretty damn righteous.
  • StephenDaugherty wrote: Being hostile and vicious to others won’t help you. It certainly hasn’t helped you with me, as I have a tendency to dig in and resist folks who try to push me around like that.
  • StephenDaugherty wrote: … do you have standards by which you will acknowledge when your own argument has failed, or are you simply trying to defend your opinion at all costs, for reasons noble or otherwise?
    Good question. Some of what you say above makes a lot of sense.

    However, you wrote:

    StephenDaugherty wrote: Being hostile and vicious to others won’t help you. It certainly hasn’t helped you with me, as I have a tendency to dig in and resist folks who try to push me around like that
    .
    Some people can certainly dish it out, but they get very upset when someone calls them on their bullying and condescending comments.

    For example, none of the following is the least bit hostile and vicious, is it ???

  • StephenDaugherty wrote: I take pride in it, that I stay calm, focused, and able to argue rationally.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , You’re wasting your time.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be frank with you, you’re no better than the people you criticize.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to badmouth us …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You had better come at us with good evidence …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you’ve provided.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: you’re, trying to win in front of me and everybody else …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stop flinging rhetoric at me and calling it facts.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can get all patronizing about that, …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facts, Dan. Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts… .
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should be obligated to think in your terms.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your attacks on the fact that I do have some party association, have done little to convince me that I should abandon them.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Now you’re trying my patience …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you’re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I consider everything I write carefully. My backspace and delete buttons get good workouts before you ever see my prose.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have a broader definition of what voter education means, I mean just straight forward learning and being told about what the people in congress are doing… . My bias is obvious.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Again, I’m going to tell you, don’t accuse people of being hypocrites without giving them the chance to demonstrate their behavior.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stop trying to play political tricks to force your politics down other people’s throats.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It might help you if you considered that people’s dislike of your prose might be your fault rather than theirs.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why do you persist in trash talking me?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I would advise you to be one of those people mature enough to realize that they are not the only whose voice and opinion matters, and that other’s votes and other’s views must be considered as well.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … so I’m telling you, leave him out of our discussion. Don’t throw a whole of silly denials my way, just let him be, or I will take this up with the adminstrators.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, I’m not all that impressed by somebody simply posting the opinions of their friends and fellow travellers trying to prove me wrong by the fact of their expression of their negative opinions. I’ve been tagged team before.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It amuses me somewhat to see the lengths you go to avoid the admission of what must clear to most other people reading our exchange: your contempt for me, for my disagreement with you
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve outlasted many people who thought they could beat me down with personal potshots. I take pride in it, that I stay calm, focused, and able to argue rationally.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I challenge you to show me the respect of arguing point to point, rather than just declaring every argument I make unworthy in pre-emption of ever having a serious discussion about those points.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I have been trying my best not to let my end degenerate as far as yours has.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You seem more concerned about quoting soundbites than presenting evidence to be subject to examination by others.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote:you claim to know how I feel, and keep on trying to build a case that I simply hate non-Democrats. Give it a rest.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: But if you look at what I’m arguing, I’m giving free strategical advice.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I do think voters should ally with Democrats.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I don’t disdain third parties.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:… as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:As bad as Democrats were, the Republicans were worse, and unapologetically so.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:… because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:You can blast me for being an unapologetic Democrat. Fine.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:They [Republicans] simply act as if it were all the Democrats fault, or the fault of people who became too liberal in Congress.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:The patience the Republicans had with corruption and greed will not be the patience Democrats will have.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:People used to say that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans. {used to?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I can say its wiser in my opinion to be a Democrat, but that doesn’t mean a person can’t believe the other way.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:d.a.n - I don’t see porkbarrel there, little projects just meant to appeal to a base back home.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:They [Republicans] are forcibly using parliamentary procedures [e.g. filibuster] in an effort to prevent Democrats from getting legislation through on majority votes, to lower the Dem’s approval numbers. {HMMMmmm … never mind that they both do it, eh?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:Democrats, though they sometimes grumble about treatment in the press, or double standards, do not play the same “media bias” game, claiming that the mainstream media cannot be trusted. We don’t want a news channel all to ourselves. {Didn’t Obama recently tell Fox News that “Fox is dedicated to ridiculing Obama and the democrats”?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:Democrats like myself aren’t waiting on that. We’re not waiting for more problems to become critical, painful, to start the change.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:This “with Democrats help” thing [the war in Iraq] is a cop-out from the responsibility.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:We’re obviously having problems getting the longtime Republican allies in our party to understand how things have changed. And we may just sweep out a few incumbents in the primary to teach a lesson.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:The fact that I’m a Democrat who favors Democrats should not stop anybody from recognizing that this is a perfectly logical statement to make …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:you claim to know how I feel, and keep on trying to build a case that I simply hate non-Democrats. Give it a rest.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:My generation of Democrats prides itself on not being caught blindsided by either the Republicans, or their own side’s problems. The ears [of Democrats] are to the ground, and we’re always, ALWAYS watching. {Always? Then why does the IN-PARTY “always” become the OUT-PARTY?}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:There might have been some Democrats kicked out [in year 1933] {59 Democrats ousted; 147 Republicans ousted; total of 206 ousted in year 1933; and in year 1995, 69 Democrats ousted; a few Republicans ousted}, but they were replaced by Democrats, and then augmented by even more Democrats. That’s how FDR passed the New Deal.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:The Republicans have the choice, which I gladly let them have, of doing scuzzy things so they can make the Democrats look bad …
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did the 110th do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ? And the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.}
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 85%-to-90% of incumbent politicians were re-elected.)
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … why do you uncritically accept partisan rhetoric …?
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Stephen Daugherty wrote:I don’t disdain third parties.
  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Quit with the numbers, while you’re at it. They’re just browbeating, …
  • More

  • Marysdud wrote: Can someone please tell me…as a comparison, how much harm have a few million ‘anchor’ babies caused America over the past eighty or so years, compared to the harm AIG/Goldman/Lehman/BOA did in ten years. {HMMM….who ever said the anchor babies were the villains?}
  • Marysdud wrote: … so the Right could argue into the future that there are STILL reasons to hold one group of citizens as a caste higher than another group of citizens…oops!
  • Marysdud wrote: I’m pretty sure the GOP thinks we live in India (pre independence).
  • Marysdud wrote: Republicans are a bullying bunch, but kicking sand in baby’s faces???
  • Marysdud wrote: All this hooplah about immigration is a shill’s idea to divert our citizenry from the real issues facing us. These so-called ‘super-patriots’ are bringing down America faster than al Qaida ever could.
  • Marysdud wrote: … and job loss will occur if illegals are taken as a group from our midst, …
  • Marysdud wrote: d.a.n., 27% or 29% are meaningless figures [from GAO report D05337R].
  • Marysdud wrote: The figures I presented are just as accurate and worthy of consideration as those you hand out like candy.
  • Marysdud wrote: You are looking at some violent acts that happened close to your home, and figures you select in order to further your views
  • Marysdud wrote: An illegal immigrant is no more likely to kill a policeman than anyone else.
  • Marysdud wrote: Unless you are willing to kill all those who enter our country illegally, …
  • Marysdud wrote: I would say that we have the hyperbole factory in gear and it is running smoothly. Again, thanks for your part in that.
  • Marysdud wrote: Yelling at those who disagree with you on who is to blame for the problem solves nothing.
  • Marysdud wrote: You and our government are pissing into the wind when you take all your venom out on the working smuck [illegal alien] who comes here to get a job.
  • Marysdud wrote: wrote: But your diatribes are way off base in any case.
  • Marysdud wrote: d.a.n … it only makes sense for me to drop your crap like a hot potato…
  • Marysdud wrote: Just committing a crime after committing the crime of illegal immigration does not change the dynamic of anything except in the minds of the already demented.
  • So, to me, this all looks like a huge exercise in hypocrisy.

    So, who are the real bullies?

    It appears very much what some people dislike most is:

    • (a) the truth;

    • (b) and anyone who won’t drink from the same koolaid fountain, despite the lack of not only logic, but proof;

    • (c) and anyone who challenges their bullying and mastery of prolific obfuscation and circular goobledygook, while hypocritically accusing others of the very things that they do more so than most anyone else (if not everyone else).

    So, now you threaten to delete the comments?
    Go ahead, because in doing so, it will most likely prove the hypocrisy and the abuse of power, no matter how puny that power is (i.e. deleting others’ comments)?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 14, 2010 4:59 PM
    Comment #305809

    62% of Americans Disapprove of Obama’s Handling of Immigration

    New Report Reveals That 8% of All Children Born in U.S. are Born to Illegal Alien Parents.

    70% of women giving birth at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas are illegal aliens.

    More …

  • Another shamnesty?: www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/jenksr/august-3-2010/what-amnesty-memo-means.html
  • www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/jenksr/august-3-2010/what-amnesty-memo-means.html
  • 10% of Utah Households Receiving Welfare Benefits Have Illegal Aliens: www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/jenksr/august-3-2010/what-amnesty-memo-means.html
  • www.VOIAC.ORG
  • www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html
  • crime (2,158 murders per year; about 6 per day): www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html
  • lies about lower crime rates by illegal aliens: www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_illegalsandcrime (NOTE: illegal aliens are not incarcerated for long-term for misdemeanors, and the first illegal immigration offense is a misdemeanor; most are released to appear in court at a later date, in which most never appear; Duh!);
  • At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 14, 2010 5:32 PM
    Comment #305811

    Marysdude, There something you said that makes a lot of sense. Crack-down on the greedy illegal employers, and that will go a long, long way to reducing illegal immigration.

    But you have to wonder why this administration, and several before it don’t do that.

    We have eVerify.

    So why doesn’t the Aministration use it?

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 14, 2010 6:00 PM
    Comment #305812

    Spellin’ Cor rek shun: Administration

    At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 14, 2010 6:04 PM
    Post a comment